On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 05:13:23PM +0100, Robert Shearman wrote: > Dan Hipschman wrote: > >On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 11:41:16AM +0200, Alexandre Julliard wrote: > > > >>That's very ugly; you shouldn't need any of that stuff, especially not > >>a separate makefile. You should put everything in the same exe, and > >>differentiate server and client through command line arguments, the > >>way the process test does it. > >> > > > >Well, I tried to make it as pretty as possible. The problem is that the > >client and server code won't link together. For each function, there's > >the implementation and the stub, both with the same name. To get both > >into the same executable, I'd have to do some sort of renaming hack, > >either with the preprocessor or something like sed. The reason I like > >two makefiles better is that messing with the output of widl weakens the > >test. I can take a second look at that approach, though, or look for an > >entirely different way if you really hate having two makefiles/exes. > > > > midl has an option to add a prefix to the server functions so that you > can compile server & client code in the same exe/dll. It might be a good > idea to add the equivalent functionality to widl for this reason.
Thanks, I'm going to try that.
