Hello David,

David Ashley wrote:
> PLEASE DO NOT MAKE ANY CHANGES TO THESE DEFINES!!!
>
> These two defines are used by the configure script to determine if we
> are compiling on the native architecture or not. Eliminating these
> will reduce the capability to perform non-native compiles (cross
> compiles) and linking.
>
In this step I was only talking about the C++ code, not the configure
system.
I did not check the use of these two (GENERIC_OS and GENERIC_OPSYS) in
configure.

I just noticed that the value of these two (AIX, OPSYS_AIX, ...) is used
in an inconsistent way in the C++ code.

I intend to changed this to:

#if defined(OPSYS_XXX) or #if !defined(OPSYS_XXX)

Does anyone see a problem in this ?
If so please give a short explanation and one sample..

Thanks very much.

Bye
  Rainer
> David Ashley
>
> On 08/06/2009 10:53 AM, Rainer Tammer wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Rick McGuire wrote:
>>   
>>> The cleanup for #defines in the platform-specific code is far from
>>> complete.  A lot of this was inherited from the original IBM code,
>>> which was not done very consistently.  I'm not even sure how/where the
>>> GENERIC_OS and GENERIC_OPSYS flags are used.  This is certainly an
>>> opportunity try to cleanup and normalize the usage.
>>>
>>> I think in terms of the different #defines, I think I'd prefer the
>>> test to be done using the OPSYS_xxxx flags rather than the short form,
>>> since there's smaller chance of accidental conflicts.
>>>
>>> However, using an OPSYS_xxxx flag should be the last option for
>>> conditional compiles, and only for situations where the
>>> conditionalized pieces apply to just a single platform.  If something
>>> applies to more than one system, then a CONFIG_ style flag set up by
>>> the build environment is the preferred method of handling things.
>>>
>>>   
>>>     
>> OK,
>> so I will try to clean it up to a consistent OPSYS_xxx version in the
>> first step.
>> In the second step we can try to reduce the amount of platform specific
>> defines in favor of
>> "configure defines". And maybe add some --with/--without configure switches.
>>   
>>> Rick
>>>
>>>   
>>>     
>> Bye
>>   Rainer
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day 
>> trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus 
>> on 
>> what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with 
>> Crystal Reports now.  http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
>> _______________________________________________
>> Oorexx-devel mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
>>
>>   
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day 
> trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on 
> what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with 
> Crystal Reports now.  http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Oorexx-devel mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
>   


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day 
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on 
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with 
Crystal Reports now.  http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
_______________________________________________
Oorexx-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel

Reply via email to