Re: [XBoard-devel] Winboard source

[Tim Mann]

I've been way too busy catching up on things around here since I got
back from vacation, but I'll try to chip away at answering some mail...

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 11:40:22 -0600, "Dan Jenkins" <address@hidden> wrote:
> >2. The Visual Studio Projectfiles don't manage the right directories and
> >files. (VS crashed with a DrWatson if i try to compile - never see this
> >before :(( )
> 
> I never had much luck compiling from the VStudio IDE either.  However, when 
> I would just use nmake on the Makefile, it compiled fine for me, last time I 
> checked...

Huh, I thought compiling was working for me from within MSVS, although I
usually just use nmake from the command line.  I only have MSVC++ 5.0,
though.

> This could be because of the CRLF problem...  Although, I did notice a 
> couple of resources in there that didn't seem to want to load for some 
> reason.  I never looked at it too closely, though.

I haven't tried loading it into the resource editor for a while.  I had
to make a few manual changes so that the cygwin resource compiler would
compile it, but I thought they were all compatible.  At least the MSVS
resource compiler would still compile it...

> >4. The makefile don't work for me (wrong path and other stuff).
> >5. The include path of all files are broken because we have a new
> >file/dir struct.

?? Works for me.  How did I build 4.2.7 if that was all wrong?

> I agree it would be nice to upgrade the project to at least VS 6.

Please don't break it for VS 5 if you want me to do more work on it.  :-)
I don't want to have to buy a new version of MS proprietary software in
order to work on a free software project.  I'd much rather migrate to using
cygwin to build.  Unfortunately cygwin doesn't have a nice graphical resource
editor.

> If it's 
> something that you guys think would be a good thing, I could also work on 
> making a VS .Net 2003 project for it.  One thing nice about the 2003 VC++ 
> .Net is that it's compiler is much more ANSI compliant than VC++ 6.0.  I 
> went to TechEd this last summer, and I think the numbers they gave at one of 
> the seminars was something like:
> 
> VC++ 6.0           76% ANSI compliant
> VC++ .Net          85% ANSI compliant
> gnu g++             96% ANSI compliant
> VC++ .Net 2003  97% ANSI compliant
> 
> Granted, it was Microsoft employees giving the seminar, but still fairly 
> impressive improvements in ANSI compliance.

For plain C code, I suspect the numbers are close to 100% for all those
compilers.

-- 
Tim Mann  address@hidden  http://tim-mann.org/