Thanks for the work! I've put a link in the 3rd party wiki page<http://code.google.com/p/protobuf/wiki/ThirdPartyAddOns>
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 11:32 PM, Scott Saad <[email protected]> wrote: > A quick status update on this effort: > > - I forked the source at GitHub under the > protobuf-cppbuilder<https://github.com/saadware/protobuf-cppbuilder>project. > - The biggest overarching changes revolved around namespaces. These > changes were minimal but touched many files. > - Main cause of this change was a "using namespace std;" statement > in common.h. I removed this but then had to fully qualify std types when > there were used (i.e. string became std::string). > - C++Builder sometimes had problems resolving namespaces. For > example if we were in google::protobuf and something was referenced in > google::protobuf::internal, I had to qualify that by adding internal:: > to > whatever was being referenced. > - Other changes revolved around #ifdef/#ifndef certain includes, etc. > (similar to MSVC). > - A very interesting compiler complaint that took me a while to track > down was how dependent names were being sometimes used/declared. When they > referred to types and templates I had to > disambiguate<http://womble.decadent.org.uk/c++/template-faq.html#disambiguation>. > This cleaned things up and made the source cleaning compile across all > platforms. > - *The libraries are compiling under C++Builder and can be linked > against.* > - *protoc is not fully working. *It compiles fine but gets a runtime > error when parsing options. I'm not yet sure what's going on here. A > workaround is to not use the protoc that gets compiled with this project, > but use the distributed binary to generate the C++ protocol buffers. Hoping > I can make some headway on this issue soon. > - I've compiled all changes on both gcc and MSVC. *All unit tests are > passing.* > > In my opinion these changes would be great to have merged back into the > protobuf proper branch as most of them aim to make the code base more cross > compiler compliant. I suppose the C++Builder is a bit more strict on a few > items. > > I would be happy to produce is diff/patch to be looked at by a main > contributor on the google project. Please just let me know what I can do to > help facilitate this. > We'd like to accept patches. However, we don't have enough engineering resources to maintain another platform. Supporting a different platform requires much testing work in the release process (also user support). I'd suggest to keep the C++ builder branch. You can always merge when a new version of protobuf is released. > > Thank you, > Scott Saad > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Protocol Buffers" group. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/protobuf/-/5L32fr5BM-QJ. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Protocol Buffers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en.
