hi please excuse my submission style. Each software project has different rules, some projects do not accept patches but only full files, other projects vice versa.
I don't know why this makefile is built in such a complex way and I agree that that should be discussed. I'm not a c-ares developer and just wanted to push my changes back to the core project to avoid that every MSVC 2013 dev has to adapt it on his own. I recommend to discuss the complexity of the makefile withi the c-ares developers and to add my changes soon to make C-ares compatible with MSVC 2013. Thank you for your effort! Kind regard, Torben Dannhauer -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: c-ares [mailto:[email protected]] Im Auftrag von Gisle Vanem Gesendet: Freitag, 22. November 2013 14:35 An: c-ares hacking Betreff: Re: MSVC 2013 "Torben Dannhauer" <[email protected]> wrote: > please find attached my extended Makefile.msvc to allow compilation > with Visual Studio 2013 RTM. You should have simply provided the diffs: @@ -125,6 +125,8 @@ CC_VERS_NUM = 110 !ELSEIF "$(_NMAKE_VER)" == "11.00.60315.1" CC_VERS_NUM = 110 +!ELSEIF "$(_NMAKE_VER)" == "12.00.21005.1" +CC_VERS_NUM = 120 !ELSE ! MESSAGE Unknown value for _NMAKE_VER macro: "$(_NMAKE_VER)" ! MESSAGE Please, report this condition on the c-ares development ---------- But I fail to understand why this makefile has to be this complex. It uses some suspicious heuristics to assert the MSVC compiler version; thinking that $(_NMAKE_VER) is related to the CL version. Is it really safe to assume they are correlated? An old nmake can just work fine with a new MSVC compiler, or not? Can it be simplified to just check for 2 CC_VERS_NUM? An old and a new? Or drop '/Gz' and '/RTCsu' all together. --gv
