Am Sonntag, 5. November 2006 05:21 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 16:27:51 -0500 Troman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >It is a cleaner approach, but for me it is more intuitively to use > >MALLOC > >since already the name implies that malloc functionality will be > >used at > >some point. And these 2 new macros will not replace all occurances > >of > >MALLOC, so we are just introducing more macros for the same > >functionality. > > > >But anyway, I will be an impartial executor of a collective > >opinion. To make > >it painless for everyone if no objections will be raised until > >tomorrow > >evening I will just go on and apply the patch. > > > >Troman > > Also keep in mind that when using VS, and your using their debug > libs to catch memory errors via the _CrtDumpMemoryLeaks() call in > the debugger, having more macros on top of other macros gets very > messy. > > Are people actually testing all these patches by playing a few > different skirmish games, and then some campaign games, and seeing > if something breaks? I usually try to start 1 game and see if something I know easily breaks is broken. This is the singleplayer cutscenes, sounds, menus etc...
> I also forgot who it was, but the person doing the 64bit port, are > they still around? Haven't seem him for long, sadly. Perhaps he just takes a break like me, but is more consequent in doing it. ;) --Dennis
pgp9rNGc4nKpa.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
