Re: rfc: WIN32 vs _WIN32 and more

2019-05-21 Thread walter harms
Am 20.05.2019 21:09, schrieb Jon Turney: > On 17/05/2019 21:00, Thomas Dickey wrote: >> 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 an

Re: rfc: WIN32 vs _WIN32 and more

2019-05-20 Thread Jon Turney
On 17/05/2019 21:00, Thomas Dickey wrote: 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 disti

Re: rfc: WIN32 vs _WIN32 and more

2019-05-17 Thread walter harms
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

Re: rfc: WIN32 vs _WIN32 and more

2019-05-17 Thread walter harms
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 >> see

Re: rfc: WIN32 vs _WIN32 and more

2019-05-17 Thread 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 however, they're distinct: https://stackoverflow.com/ques

Re: rfc: WIN32 vs _WIN32 and more

2019-05-17 Thread 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 rep

Re: rfc: WIN32 vs _WIN32 and more

2019-05-17 Thread 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 engin

Re: rfc: WIN32 vs _WIN32 and more

2019-05-17 Thread Alan Coopersmith
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

Re: rfc: WIN32 vs _WIN32 and more

2019-05-17 Thread James Larrowe
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

2019-05-17 Thread walter harms
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

rfc: WIN32 vs _WIN32 and more

2019-05-17 Thread walter harms
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 u