On 6-2-2012 19:54, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote:
The Microsoft way is not the same as the Free Pascal way. We are not required to immitate them when implementing our routines. The Microsoft way has nasty side effects: 1> makes it impossible to support Unicode and support Windows 9x at the same time, but I doubt that Free Pascal wants to drop Windows 9x support (even if it is obsolete). 2> Breaks the interface because the string type changed
No, this is not true, not at all, to the contrary, that's what the PE flag is for:
If you want to compile for any windows version, choose ansi mode and the OS "respects" and "expects" that.
If you want a unicode default (i.e. win2000 and higher) choose unicode mode.The library should be totally opaque when the programmer decides what he wants. What you are doing is making changes in the generated code that shoukld be resolved at compile time. This can be resolved at link time, but I expect it should be resolved at compile time.
That's why I agree with you that changes are necessary. (Although the PE flag is a linker instruction) What we are required to do is respect the OS we compile for.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
