I have VC++ 2005 ee in my windows xp.
Hmm, what is ee? Express? Enterprise? And do you want to use just
the IDE, i.e. Visual Studio, or do you intend to use makefiles (and
Microsoft's Make, nmake.exe)?
How do I compile my gtk c code then.
I assume you also have the GTK+ developer files, i.e.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jeffrey Barish wrote:
Is there an installer that actually works on XP? I have tried about half a
dozen and all are missing some component. For example, the gtk 2.12
package available at SourceForge
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 2:34 PM, Ross Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2008-07-03 at 14:21 +0300, Andrew W. Nosenko wrote:
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Rui Tiago Cação Matos
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 03/07/2008, Alberto Mardegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi, quick question: why do
Because const in C is crippled, unlike in C++ where its actually useful.
Soory, but you aren't right:
Yes, he is, but you did not understand him. He was making a language
comment, not an implementation comment.
const in C does not propagate as usefully as you would like. Therefore,
the
Hi,
This is in the archives a bunch of times, for example the first google
hit I got was
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gtk-devel-list/2001-May/msg00485.html
Whether you agree or not, the GLib types don't use const in their API,
so if you try to use const yourself on these types you're just
ext Havoc Pennington wrote:
Hi,
This is in the archives a bunch of times, for example the first google
hit I got was
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gtk-devel-list/2001-May/msg00485.html
Ah, sorry, I only researched about GHashTable.
Whether you agree or not, the GLib types don't use const
Morten Welinder wrote:
const in C does not propagate as usefully as you would like. Therefore,
the following sniplet is not violating C rules:
struct Foo { int *x; };
int foo (const struct Foo *p) { *(p-x) = 1; }
I don't think most languages propagate a const-like type. However, at
least
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 9:49 AM, Alberto Mardegan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I proposed a patch which adds some const here and there, would that be
discarded a priori, or would it undergo a serious consideration?
I'm not a GTK maintainer, but one problem with this is backward
Havoc Pennington wrote:
I'm not a GTK maintainer, but one problem with this is backward
compatibility. Adding const can certainly break previously-working
code, especially C++ code.
This was an issued once faced when people migrated from KR C to ANSI C.
Nothing wrong with having a gconst
Hello:
I am building for an GTK+2.12.10 for an embedded ARM Linux system
through Scratchbox. Previously, I've been able to get everything to
build (along with applications). Yesterday, I upgraded DirectFB and
needed to rebuild GTK and the applications (they were still linked to
the old
Keith Williams wrote:
Hello:
I am building for an GTK+2.12.10 for an embedded ARM Linux system
through Scratchbox. Previously, I've been able to get everything to
build (along with applications). Yesterday, I upgraded DirectFB and
needed to rebuild GTK and the applications (they were
BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 3:49 PM, Alberto Mardegan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ext Havoc Pennington wrote:
Whether you agree or not, the GLib types don't use const in their API,
so if you try to use const yourself on these types you're just signing
up for pain. It won't work
ext Brian J. Tarricone wrote:
Now, that's for C. For C++ passing a const pointer to a function
expecting a non-const pointer actually a hard *error*[1]. So the API
couldn't be changed in this way without likely breaking any C++
application that uses these glib data structures.
Yes, but
13 matches
Mail list logo
