Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
On January 2, 2003 12:30 pm, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
It doesn't really matter, just pick the one you prefer.
I know, but I was hoping people had better suggestions :)
I like __WINESRC__ the best (but that doesn't mean much g),
so unless people have a better
Dimitrie O. Paun [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On January 1, 2003 07:40 pm, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
I think __WINE__ is best, let's just rename the internal one. BTW this
Cool, but to what? __WINESRC__? __WINEBUILD__? __WINEINTERNAL__?
It doesn't really matter, just pick the one you prefer.
On January 2, 2003 12:30 pm, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
It doesn't really matter, just pick the one you prefer.
I know, but I was hoping people had better suggestions :)
I like __WINESRC__ the best (but that doesn't mean much g),
so unless people have a better idea, that's going to be it.
Sure,
Dimitrie O. Paun [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sure, we can do the rename first.
Probably a script to do it would be best, no?
I don't think there are that many, a patch would be fine.
No, these should be removed. The same effect can be achieved by
defining COM_NO_WINDOWS_H in the C files
Dimitrie O. Paun [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On December 22, 2002 03:04 pm, Francois Gouget wrote:
But I'm open to change, '__WINE__' looks more like the others. Maybe
'__WINELIB__' would do? (but I prefer '__WINE__')
Alexandre, what do you think? I'd like to have winegcc define this by
On January 1, 2003 07:40 pm, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
I think __WINE__ is best, let's just rename the internal one. BTW this
Cool, but to what? __WINESRC__? __WINEBUILD__? __WINEINTERNAL__?
may be the occasion to clean things up a bit, we have way too many of
these ifdefs in our headers, and
On December 22, 2002 03:04 pm, Francois Gouget wrote:
But I'm open to change, '__WINE__' looks more like the others. Maybe
'__WINELIB__' would do? (but I prefer '__WINE__')
Alexandre, what do you think? I'd like to have winegcc define this by
default, but we have to decide on a symbol name.
Dimitrie O. Paun [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here is another problem: we are currently defining the __WINE__ symbol
to signal the headers that we are compiling Wine. This is fine. The
problem that I'm facing is that there are apps (such as wxWindows) that
want to know that they are _compiled_
On December 22, 2002 04:44 am, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
Compiling under Wine should not IMO require defining additional symbols
except probably __WIN32__.
It shouldn't. In theory. But the difference between practice and theory
is that while in theory practice and theory are the same, in practice
Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
It shouldn't. In theory. But the difference between practice and theory
is that while in theory practice and theory are the same, in practice
they are different ((c) Larry McVoy) :).
That works great in practice, but it will never fly in theory (anonymous).
On Sun, 22 Dec 2002, Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
[...]
So, my proposal is: let's rename the __WINE__ symbol (as it's
currently used) to something else (__WINESRC__, or whatever,
suggestions welcome), once that's done, define __WINE__ when
__WINESRC__ is not defined (the symbols would be mutually
Hi folks,
Here is another problem: we are currently defining the __WINE__ symbol
to signal the headers that we are compiling Wine. This is fine. The
problem that I'm facing is that there are apps (such as wxWindows) that
want to know that they are _compiled_ (not run) under Wine.
All platforms
12 matches
Mail list logo
