I'd look into cygwin as well as mingw if I were trying to hack a recent version of memcached to work on a M$ box.
however, there are older versions which behave somewhat badly, but do work, on windows. On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 4:12 AM, Henrik Schröder<[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 04:30, Dustin <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> My understanding (and I can't find anything to the contrary -- MS's >> site is just awful an makes it quite difficult to find a simple >> answer) is that VS doesn't support C99. The jellycan diff shows a few >> areas where valid C99 code was modified for C89 compliance. >> >> Supporting Windows is difficult and expensive, but there was one >> very specific constraint that I'd placed on the porting effort to >> ensure it would be acceptable and maintainable: >> >> A new platform port must touch the existing code as absolutely >> little as possible. > > Fair enough. Visual Studio doesn't support C99, and it seems they won't > support it in the near future anyway. You can apparently switch to Intel's > compiler in visual studio, but that's getting as non-standard as using > mingw, so if that approach works better for you, go for it. I remember > trying to compile memcahed way back using mingw, but failing on the > platform-specific parts that just didn't work under windows. > > Anyway, there seems to be a mingw compiler for Linux, so you could actually > do the work in your preferred environment but use the cross-compiler > instead, and then just test the resulting windows exe on your windows > machine. I dunno, maybe that approach helps with your problems? > >> >> I hope I don't sound too unwilling to compromise, but as it is we >> can't get anyone to help support a porting effort, so putting more >> onus on the existing development community, most of whom probably know >> Windows about as well as I do, is unreasonable at this point. > > That's fine, I really wish I could be of more help, but I'm really not a C > programmer, and I agree, windows modifications have to be kept as > unobtrusive as possible so that you can continue churning out new versions > without really touching the windows part, or having to worry about it. I > also looked at the patches for the windows versions of 1.2.5 and 1.2.6, and > they are pretty substantial. :-/ > >> >> Hey, you're free to do that anyway. Surely someone uses your client >> with a non-Windows server. :) > > Well, the problem is that I don't have a non-windows machine that I can run > it on. :-) > > > /Henrik > -- ~ When the great Tao is forgotten, kindness and morality arise.
