headers
Luke Dunstan | 1 Nov 2005 16:00
Picon
Favicon

Re: OBJBASE_H_?


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Chris Sutcliffe" <ironhead@...>
To: <mingw-dvlpr@...>
Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2005 10:34 AM
Subject: Re: [MinGW-dvlpr] OBJBASE_H_?

> Hey,
>
>> gets us back to the objbase.h  header guard before this
>> 2004-04-24  Luke Dunstan  <infidel@...>
>>  * include/objbase.h (_OBJBASE_H_): Define.
>>
>> which was followed by this incorrect reversion of the above
>> 2005-09-08  Dimitri Papadopoulos  <papadopo@...>
>>  * include/objbase.h: Avoid double header guard.
>
> Since the removal of the proper #define caused compilation failures, I
> figured it was just a matter of correcting what appeared to be the
> incorrect #define.  If, for some reason, it's better to use _OBJBASE_H_, I
> have no problem with it, as long as the #ifndef is also changed to suit.

Your patch was a correct fix to the problem caused by Dimitri's patch. The 
issue is that it effectively also reverted my patch: if you look at the 
version from before Dimitri's patch then you will understand. It defines 
BOTH OBJBASE_H_ and _OBJBASE_H_ but uses #ifndef OBJBASE_H_.

Luke

>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Chris Sutcliffe | 1 Nov 2005 16:21

Re: OBJBASE_H_?

>> Since the removal of the proper #define caused compilation failures, I
>> figured it was just a matter of correcting what appeared to be the
>> incorrect #define.  If, for some reason, it's better to use _OBJBASE_H_,
>> I
>> have no problem with it, as long as the #ifndef is also changed to suit.
>
> Your patch was a correct fix to the problem caused by Dimitri's patch. The
> issue is that it effectively also reverted my patch: if you look at the
> version from before Dimitri's patch then you will understand. It defines
> BOTH OBJBASE_H_ and _OBJBASE_H_ but uses #ifndef OBJBASE_H_.

Is your preference that I change _OBJBASE_H to _OBJBASE_H_?  I have no
issue with doing that, however, I don't understand why.  Doing a grep for
_OBJBASE_H in the include directory did not provide more than the one
definition, so there should not be a conflict.

Chris

--
Chris Sutcliffe
ironhead@...
http://emergedesktop.org
http://ironhead.modblog.com

-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the JBoss Inc.
Get Certified Today * Register for a JBoss Training Course
Free Certification Exam for All Training Attendees Through End of 2005
Visit http://www.jboss.com/services/certification for more information
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Dimitri Papadopoulos-Orfanos | 2 Nov 2005 10:21
Picon

Re: OBJBASE_H_?

Hi,

> Your patch was a correct fix to the problem caused by Dimitri's patch.

The reason for my patch was that MinGW is currently using standard _*_H 
header guards everywhere, except for <objbase.h> I felt defining 
Microsoft's _OBJBASE_H_ in addition to MinGW's _OBJBASE_H for 
<objbase.h> only was just a hack.

The reason for Luke's patch was that some pieces of software expect 
Microsoft's header guards. Indeed this is a general problem with MinGW 
headers. Here is another example I'm aware of:
	#include <windows.h>
	[...]
	#if !defined(_WINDOWS_)
	#error Please include <windows.h> first!
	#endif
This will fail with MinGW but it works with Visual C++.

Now I don't know how compatible MinGW should be with Microsoft's 
headers. At first I thought it would be worth keeping strict conformance 
to MinGW's standard header guards. Thinking about it again, I tend to 
agree with Luke, it's probably worth trying to use the same header 
guards as Microsoft.

Now a good option is maybe to maintain two sets of header guards:
1) MinGW's standard header guards (_*_H) and
2) Microsoft's header guards. The problem is that Microsoft obviously do 
not follow any standard. Here are some examples I'm aware of:
	windows.h -> _WINDOWS_
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Danny Smith | 2 Nov 2005 19:21
Picon

Re: OBJBASE_H_?


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dimitri Papadopoulos-Orfanos" <papadopo@...>
To: <mingw-dvlpr@...>
Sent: Wednesday, 2 November 2005 22:21
Subject: Re: [MinGW-dvlpr] OBJBASE_H_?

> Hi,
> 
> > Your patch was a correct fix to the problem caused by Dimitri's patch.
> 
> The reason for my patch was that MinGW is currently using standard _*_H 
> header guards everywhere, except for <objbase.h> I felt defining 
> Microsoft's _OBJBASE_H_ in addition to MinGW's _OBJBASE_H for 
> <objbase.h> only was just a hack.
> 

And your patch to remove _OBJBASE_H  was just careless

Danny

-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Tame your development challenges with Apache's Geronimo App Server. Download
it for free - -and be entered to win a 42" plasma tv or your very own
Sony(tm)PSP.  Click here to play: http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Dimitri Papadopoulos-Orfanos | 3 Nov 2005 08:08
Picon

Re: OBJBASE_H_?

Hi,

>>>Your patch was a correct fix to the problem caused by Dimitri's patch.
>>
>>The reason for my patch was that MinGW is currently using standard _*_H 
>>header guards everywhere, except for <objbase.h> I felt defining 
>>Microsoft's _OBJBASE_H_ in addition to MinGW's _OBJBASE_H for 
>><objbase.h> only was just a hack.
>>
> 
> 
> And your patch to remove _OBJBASE_H  was just careless

Thank you, Danny. That was what one might call an error, the intent was 
to remove _OBJBASE_H_. I wasn't actually aware I had removed _OBJBASE_H 
until I looked at the CVS log a few minutes ago.

What about the proposal for maintaining both MinGW's _*_H and 
Microsoft's headers guards? I think Luke was right and I was wrong about 
that.

Dimitri

-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Tame your development challenges with Apache's Geronimo App Server. Download
it for free - -and be entered to win a 42" plasma tv or your very own
Sony(tm)PSP.  Click here to play: http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Mohan Embar | 3 Nov 2005 20:52

New MinGW 4.0.2 Build

Hi People,

I've put out a new MinGW 4.0.2 gcc/gcj build:

http://www.thisiscool.com/gcc_mingw.htm

This has integrated SwingWT 0.87 and SWT 3138
and upgraded w32api, mingw-runtime, binutils.
It also has integrated libiconv so you can
compile using the --encoding switch. (There's
a test in the examples directory which illustrates
this.)

Enjoy.

-- Mohan
http://www.thisiscool.com/
http://www.animalsong.org/

-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Tame your development challenges with Apache's Geronimo App Server. Download
it for free - -and be entered to win a 42" plasma tv or your very own
Sony(tm)PSP.  Click here to play: http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Mohan Embar | 4 Nov 2005 13:33

Updated MinGW 4.0.2 Build

Hi People,

I've removed the 20051103 MinGW gcc/gcj 4.0.2
build I did and replaced it with a new one:

http://www.thisiscool.com/gcc_mingw.htm

Rutger Ovidius mentioned off list that the 20051103
build had this problem:

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22330

...which I've attempted to work around (see the Bugzilla
entry above for details).

Let me know if you have any questions or problems with
this.

-- Mohan
http://www.thisiscool.com/
http://www.animalsong.org/

-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Tame your development challenges with Apache's Geronimo App Server. Download
it for free - -and be entered to win a 42" plasma tv or your very own
Sony(tm)PSP.  Click here to play: http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Marcel Cox | 4 Nov 2005 12:29
Picon

Re: New MinGW 4.0.2 Build


Mohan Embar wrote:

> I've put out a new MinGW 4.0.2 gcc/gcj build:
> 
> http://www.thisiscool.com/gcc_mingw.htm

Alas the gcc40-20051103.tar.bz2 download link on that page does not
seem to work :-(

--

-- 
Marcel Cox

-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Tame your development challenges with Apache's Geronimo App Server. Download
it for free - -and be entered to win a 42" plasma tv or your very own
Sony(tm)PSP.  Click here to play: http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Earnie Boyd | 7 Nov 2005 13:47

New SF frontend

All,

SF is planning an update of the GUI frontend.  They have offered a look at
http://test.sf.net.  The reason I'm posting is that the new format will
significantly break the mkRelease.tcl script that creates the table on the
downloads page.  There are a few days before they release to the public but I
don't have time to recode the TCL script to parse the new format.

Earnie

-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Tame your development challenges with Apache's Geronimo App Server. Download
it for free - -and be entered to win a 42" plasma tv or your very own
Sony(tm)PSP.  Click here to play: http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Keith Marshall | 12 Nov 2005 19:33
Picon

Re: New SF frontend

On Monday 07 November 2005 12:47 pm, Earnie Boyd wrote:
> All,
>
> SF is planning an update of the GUI frontend.  They have offered a look at
> http://test.sf.net.  The reason I'm posting is that the new format will
> significantly break the mkRelease.tcl script that creates the table on the
> downloads page.  There are a few days before they release to the public but
> I don't have time to recode the TCL script to parse the new format.

Seems like that script is owned by Luke (infidel), and group mingw.  My shell
server access appears to be restricted to group 100 (users), and 770 access 
restrictions won't even allow me to look at this script.

Regards,
Keith.

-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Tame your development challenges with Apache's Geronimo App Server. Download
it for free - -and be entered to win a 42" plasma tv or your very own
Sony(tm)PSP.  Click here to play: http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |

Gmane