On 04/03/13 21:44, Pete Batard wrote:
> On 2013.03.04 14:38, Toby Gray wrote:
>> Why winsock.h and not winsock2.h?
> Simple. I tried winsock2 and got plenty of conflicts.
> And since I didn't have time to invest resolving them, I went with winsock.
Understandable. It turns out that it's the best t
PS: I have now pushed both patches
/Pete
--
Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics
Download AppDynamics Lite for free today:
http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb
_
On 2013.03.04 14:38, Toby Gray wrote:
> Why winsock.h and not winsock2.h?
Simple. I tried winsock2 and got plenty of conflicts.
And since I didn't have time to invest resolving them, I went with winsock.
> Does the WDK only include winsock.h?
Last time I checked, I think all the Windows platform
On 27/02/13 23:15, Pete Batard wrote:
> For your consideration. This is part of the WinCE cleanup I mentioned
> some time ago.
Thank you for taking the time to do that. It certainly does simplify things.
>
> While this is impacts a whole bunch of files, but it's mostly cleanup,
> and I tested c
For your consideration. This is part of the WinCE cleanup I mentioned
some time ago.
While this is impacts a whole bunch of files, but it's mostly cleanup,
and I tested compilation on everything but OS-X or *BSD (and yes, WinCE
compilation was tested).
The most controversial element is proba
