Re: [Cvs-dev] GNULIB update patch

[Jim Hyslop]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

[catching up on several portions of this thread]

Mark D. Baushke wrote:
> Okay, I have added back the '#define HAVE_STDINT_H 1' which implies that
> I should also possibly have a pathname to use for
> 
> #define FULL_PATH_STDINT_H </path/to/stdint.h>
> 
> in there as well...

I'm not sure that would be necessary. The windows-NT/config.h has 'undef
FULL_PATH_STDINT_H' in it, but it compiles OK. I haven't run automake,
though, so that might be a problem there.

> To be perfectly honest, I suspect that there is some other
> problem with the HAVE_STDINT_H macro that Jim has not found yet.
Well, I just updated to the latest trunk, and it builds and compiles OK.
 Or are you concerned about runtime problems? If that's the case, then
it would simply be one more bug in the list of problems I'm discovering
as I try to get sanity.sh to work with the MSVC build (for example, some
of the diff tests fail because the more recent code uses unlink() to
delete a read-only file - the Windows version of ulink() doesn't delete
the file if it's read only).

BTW, if HAVE_STDINT_H is not defined, then MSVC gives a lot of errors
trying to compile lib/ files, because it has no declaration of intmax_t
and uintmax_t.

Derek R. Price wrote:
> Mark D. Baushke wrote:
>
>>>I should also possibly have a pathname to use for
>>>
>>>#define FULL_PATH_STDINT_H </path/to/stdint.h>
>>>
>>>in there as well...
>
>
> Won't this be bad under Windows?  What happens if MSVC is installed to a
> different directory (through user choice or a change of defaults in
> different versions of the program)?  Does MSVC6 support the
> #include_next directive?

The stdint.h that the Windows build uses does not come with Visual
Studio, but is part of the CCVS source code in the windows-NT/
directory. Does that help any?

No, Visual Studio 6 does not support #include_next.

> Also, I'm forwarding this question from Dennis Jones, who has been
> running the nightly CVS builds under Windows.  He wants to know if we
> are now requiring MSVC++ 6.0 (as opposed to 5.0).  I believe Conrad
> was
> rebuilding things with 5.0

Oh, I'd forgotten that. Yes, if Dennis can use VC6 that's probably
better, since that's the version I've been using. I don't believe I've
seen anything from Conrad for a while - am I correct in assuming his
attention is focused elsewhere?

> Note that MS support for even MSVC
> 6.0 ended September of last year
> so it may be reasonable to discontinue support even for 6.0 ourselves.
> Especially as it appears that MS now makes a version of MSVC++ 2005
> (called MS Visual Studio 2005 Express Edition) available for free
> download.  Of course, I have no idea what is necessary to compile CVS
> under 2005 Express, if it is even possible.

I agree, it's time to let this fossil RIP if possible. I'll send a
message to the bug-cvs list to see if anyone has any objections (or
possibly has already done it!).

- --
Jim Hyslop
Dreampossible: Better software. Simply.     http://www.dreampossible.ca
                 Consulting * Mentoring * Training in
    C/C++ * OOD * SW Development & Practices * Version Management
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEmFsRLdDyDwyJw+MRAprJAKCgXdxxeaBkJ1Y9na4Q6iuY3vB8FgCgq6rT
VxnLDre96ROkWzcS6dOtMXo=
=57XT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----