Hello,
Thank you for adding a link!
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
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 1:35 AM, Scott Saad saa...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
Thank you for adding a link!
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
My experience has been that C++Builder is worse (less standards-
compliant / less capable) than GCC and MSVC, so most changes to
accommodate it are actually working around its shortcomings.
I've also struggled with C++Builder in the past.
I was working some on getting protobuf to work
On Oct 11, 11:32 am, Scott Saad saa...@gmail.com wrote:
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.
My
A quick status update on this effort:
- I forked the source at GitHub under the
protobuf-cppbuilderhttps://github.com/saadware/protobuf-cppbuilderproject.
- The biggest overarching changes revolved around namespaces. These
changes were minimal but touched many files.
- Main cause
