bug-commoncpp
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Windows Platform SDK - IPv6 - Borland C++ Builder 6.0 - Windows 2000


From: David Sugar
Subject: Re: Windows Platform SDK - IPv6 - Borland C++ Builder 6.0 - Windows 2000
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 16:52:01 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.5 (Macintosh/20050711)

Yes, ipv6 and platformsdk have an odd entanglement at the moment. The default I choose, actually, of having platformsdk defined, was in large part because this matched what osip/exosip also required. The ipv6 entanglements only made the problem harder.

Conrad T. Pino wrote:
Hi David,


-----Original Message-----
From: David Sugar
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 04:48
To: Conrad T. Pino
Cc: Bug Common C++
Subject: Re: ccgnu2 - Win32 Microsoft Compiler Warnings

I had wondered if there was a more elegant way of handling the platform sdk version, as it seems the older and newer sdk have mutually exclusive requirements for the ordering of header files...for the moment the distribution assumes the newer sdk is installed by default.

==================
I need a better solution today and the distribution assumptions won't do.

As I see it there's an entanglement between:

1. Header files provided by Windows compiler
2. Presence or absence of Platform SDK
3. Presence or absence of IPv6 on platform
==================
Here are the use cases I've encountered:

Microsoft Visual C++ 6.0 out of the box requires HAVE_PLATFORMSDK be
UNDEFINED or the compile errors are messy which leaves CCXX_IPV6 as
UNDEFINED also.

Borland C++ Builder 6 out of the box requires HAVE_PLATFORMSDK be
DEFINED or the compile errors are messy however the link fails on
Windows 2000 due to the lack of 2 symbols for IPv6 structures as
Windows 2000 doesn't officially support IPv6.  To compile and link
on Windows 2000 I must UNDEFINE CCXX_IPV6 also.
==================
IMO HAVE_PLATFORMSDK & CCXX_IPV6 should be independant variables.
Both should *always* be defined as 0 or 1 so both can always be
exposed and controlled in the build files so source code edits are
no longer required.

I'd like to see if I can make HAVE_PLATFORMSDK go away altogether.

Best regards,

Conrad Pino



_______________________________________________
Bug-commoncpp mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-commoncpp

Attachment: dyfet.vcf
Description: Vcard


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]