Re: rfc: WIN32 vs _WIN32 and more
Am 17.05.2019 21:51, schrieb Thomas Dickey: > On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 04:26:10PM +0200, walter harms wrote: >> >> >> Am 17.05.2019 13:01, schrieb James Larrowe: >>> I use _WIN32 or __WIN32__ depending on the context. >>> >> my idea was to reduce the number of defines :) >> >> the problem is that i have no way to test what would happen if >> i replace WIN32 with _WIN32. >> >> So the question is left, is WIN32 still used ? > > sure - there was a recent update in Intrinsic.c which relies upon that slice. > Actually that made me investigate the use. There is a single use for _WIN32 in NextEvent.c making this to WIN32 would clean the table, but i can not test. #ifdef _WIN32 typedef long suseconds_t; #endif re, wh > ___ > xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development > Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel > Info: https://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel ___ xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: https://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
Re: rfc: WIN32 vs _WIN32 and more
Am 17.05.2019 21:57, schrieb Thomas Dickey: > On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 10:08:47AM +0200, walter harms wrote: >> Hi list, >> is there a common ground for using OS related defines ? >> I was look at some libs and found some defines that >> look pretty ancient. And some like >> WIN32 vs _WIN32 >> seems to confuse other people also ( ask you search engine) >> >> I found also: >> ISC * > > I'll be removing that one. > >> hpux > > That one's for HPUX 9 vs 10 (both old). > > However, before removing code, it helps to read and investigate the > comment, which says that has to match existing code in Xlib. > I am aware, the point was Alan what said ''We've removed a bunch of code using those defines already (I've mostly used #unifdef to do so, with manual editing only for special cases). We still need the #ifdefs for sun & sparc, but prefer the __sun & __sparc forms so they still work in strict standards compliance mode. '' I was look for a common set of defines and systems that are defined in all libraries. Obviously, it is a for a user no help if FOO is defined in one and removed in others. more over, i would argue for one define per system. If need this can handled if #ifdef. Now i would like to see what ancient code can be removed. re, wh ___ xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: https://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
Re: rfc: WIN32 vs _WIN32 and more
On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 10:08:47AM +0200, walter harms wrote: > Hi list, > is there a common ground for using OS related defines ? > I was look at some libs and found some defines that > look pretty ancient. And some like > WIN32 vs _WIN32 however, they're distinct: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/662084/whats-the-difference-between-the-win32-and-win32-defines-in-c -- Thomas E. Dickey https://invisible-island.net ftp://ftp.invisible-island.net signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: https://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
Re: rfc: WIN32 vs _WIN32 and more
On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 04:26:10PM +0200, walter harms wrote: > > > Am 17.05.2019 13:01, schrieb James Larrowe: > > I use _WIN32 or __WIN32__ depending on the context. > > > my idea was to reduce the number of defines :) > > the problem is that i have no way to test what would happen if > i replace WIN32 with _WIN32. > > So the question is left, is WIN32 still used ? sure - there was a recent update in Intrinsic.c which relies upon that slice. -- Thomas E. Dickey https://invisible-island.net ftp://ftp.invisible-island.net signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: https://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
Re: rfc: WIN32 vs _WIN32 and more
On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 10:08:47AM +0200, walter harms wrote: > Hi list, > is there a common ground for using OS related defines ? > I was look at some libs and found some defines that > look pretty ancient. And some like > WIN32 vs _WIN32 > seems to confuse other people also ( ask you search engine) > > I found also: > ISC * I'll be removing that one. > hpux That one's for HPUX 9 vs 10 (both old). However, before removing code, it helps to read and investigate the comment, which says that has to match existing code in Xlib. -- Thomas E. Dickey https://invisible-island.net ftp://ftp.invisible-island.net signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: https://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
Re: rfc: WIN32 vs _WIN32 and more
On 5/17/19 1:08 AM, walter harms wrote: I found also: ISC * MOTOROLA * VMS* USG* sgi ultrix * __osf__ * We've removed a bunch of code using those defines already (I've mostly used #unifdef to do so, with manual editing only for special cases). We still need the #ifdefs for sun & sparc, but prefer the __sun & __sparc forms so they still work in strict standards compliance mode. -- -Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersm...@oracle.com Oracle Solaris Engineering - https://blogs.oracle.com/alanc ___ xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: https://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
Re: rfc: WIN32 vs _WIN32 and more
If that's what you want to do, then I suggest to just use _WIN32 for everything. ___ xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: https://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
Re: rfc: WIN32 vs _WIN32 and more
Am 17.05.2019 13:01, schrieb James Larrowe: > I use _WIN32 or __WIN32__ depending on the context. > my idea was to reduce the number of defines :) the problem is that i have no way to test what would happen if i replace WIN32 with _WIN32. So the question is left, is WIN32 still used ? re, wh ___ xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: https://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
rfc: WIN32 vs _WIN32 and more
Hi list, is there a common ground for using OS related defines ? I was look at some libs and found some defines that look pretty ancient. And some like WIN32 vs _WIN32 seems to confuse other people also ( ask you search engine) I found also: ISC * MOTOROLA * VMS* USG* hpux sgi sparc sun ultrix * __osf__ * * dead ? For easier maintainability i would like to remove defines that are not in use any more. re, wh ___ xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: https://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
