Hello Paul and thanks for the quick reply! Paul Smith <psmith at nortel.com> writes: > There is a beta of the next release which has "pretty recent" > versions of the code:
Thanks I will try that! Note, all I did with my build was to ensure the right headers was included and disable any redefined prototype. See this: extern void* malloc(size_t); is not the same as _CRTIMP void* __cdecl malloc(size_t); I did NOT change any code! > I'm happy to work with anyone on the Windows port. Note that > the Windows versions of GNU make is maintained by volunteers, > since the developers don't have any access to Windows > platforms. This makes changes there somewhat tricky, as > there has to be some kind of consensus behind them. The > exact process is, unfortunately, ill-defined. I understand. The lack of a common platform is the real problem. In Windows, the de facto standard is the Microsoft compiler. It may seem as a good joke to build make.exe with build.exe(!), nevertheless I propose the Windows DDK since it's the offical tool used by Microsoft to build the Windows OS and all Microsoft SDK's. It's free and includes a complete build system. The build environment is very easy: Just specify the name and type of the binary and list the source files in a text file. For the development team of GNU make it would be very easy to maintain. If a release will pass this tool, all other compilers for Windows will surely have no problem. GNU make is a nice tool and widely used in crossplatform projects (ie Mozilla FireFox). A reliable Windows release supported by the developers is in great need. > Please be clear on how the configure macros are used in GNU > make (and any autoconf-ed package): they do NOT get set, > generally, on a per-operating system or even per-runtime > library basis. For some systems like Windows, some > exceptions are made since the configuration step does not > properly work there. Exactly! How about that? I can just imagine how much time the Mozilla developers spends on getting the makefiles work on both Linux and Windows. Microsoft extensions > That's incredibly stupid. The ISO standard defines that > __STDC__ should be set if the compiler is standards > conforming. All a compiler has to do to be standards > conforming is to accept all standards-conforming programs and > compile them correctly (according to the standard). > There is absolutely no problem with the compiler accepting > _EXTENSIONS_ to the language and still defining __STDC__, as > long as they don't break a standards-conforming program. ...yes, well I suppose it have historical reasons, anyway that is how it works. Kind regards Jerker _______________________________________________ Make-w32 mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/make-w32
