Michael Williams

> It has been some time since you made this.

It was last summer (2009). I needed a strong program to test an idea on it
that worked well on a weaker program. I haven't shared this with the list
yet, because I am now modifying it and cannot spend as much time as I
would like. What I need to prove is that Fuego + mod wins against
Fuego without mod. I do not plan to continue using Fuego after that
since I have my own platform.

> Did you have to make changes to any of the original Fuego files?

Yes. You can sort the files by date to see which have been.
I think all modifications have the remark // WinFuego04
(At least it should be so.)

Most of the modifications are:

1. Adding an explicit (type) to make the compiler accept a flexible
use of different types. Of course, I assume the original programmer
did that on purpose and the program is debugged, so I is just
telling the compiler to ignore it.

2. Adding a #pragma to ignore a warning for the same reason.

3. Includes to "WinFuego_linux2win" because the time library
used is not the same a the libraries available in MS c++
This translates some functions I couldn't find directly to
their Windows API equivalent.

I don't remember if there are more, but none is functional. I mean
I did not change the behavior of the program in any way. (I did so
later after studying what the program did when I could run it.)

> I'm asking because I'm trying to figure out what would go wrong
> if I dumped current Fuego files into the Windows-buildable source
> that you provided.

If the new Fuego does not use more boost functions, the subset
of boost libraries included should be enough. Otherwise you should
find the missing boost files from the same version of boost.

If you try to compile the new files, assuming the architecture of the
program did not change, you will get the same (or similar) errors
and warnings I got and you have my files to see how I corrected
it. It is a tedious work but it can be done since I did that already.

Jacques.


_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Reply via email to