On December 2, 2003 05:48 am, Ferenc Wagner wrote:
"Dimitrie O. Paun" dpaun@rogers.com writes:
-- the mkdir() issue is still not 100% solved. We currently have: #ifndef _WIN32 # define mkdir(d) mkdir (d, 0777) #endif [...] Why don't we just link with msvcrt?
"Dimitrie O. Paun" dpaun@rogers.com also wrote:
"Doctor, it hurts when I do that..." :))) I'd say, don't do it. Just use libc calls, don't link against msvcrt.
That's why. To preserve our sanity. Maybe it's not worth it.
:))) I know there was a reason, but I can't quite remember what the problem was. :)
Or we can change the test to:#if defined(__unix__) && !defined(__MSVCRT__) which should work with all: gcc/winegcc/mingw/msvc
It may be the easier path. But this strongly depends on Alexandre's verdict. See the discussion on the other branch of this thread.
Well, unfortunately, the mkdir() bit is a ugly wart. I've run into it in other projects (wxWindows comes to mind). If anyone can figure out a solution that doesn't involve modifying the app, let me know. Until then this should do.
-- we use fatal() in remove_dir() Again, not a problem, but I'm wondering if we're not too strict.
Sure, we are. In the beginning, nothing useful happened after remove_dir(), so I just didn't care. Moving send_file before this would be useful indeed. Someone someday may create a real UI for this and handle it properly.
Until then, how about we replace the fatal() call to a warning() call which does not exit?
-- running ELF tests When we do so, we use a hardcoded path for wine
Oh yes, that's for me who does not have wine in the path. We could just remove the path, I could add wine to my PATH, and that's it.
Well, let's do that then :)
-- we're linking against ws2_32 Is this DLL available on all versions of Windows we want to run on?
As far I know http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/winsock/winsock/windows_sockets_st art_page_2.asp yes.
It's OK then. We need to depend on _something_ to send out the results, this seems like a decent dependency.
I can't see any showstoppers
Good to you. :) What do you think about Alexandre's cross- configuring idea?
Well, it's a clean idea. The CROSSCC stuff that I've adopted from the tests it's a bit of a hack, and I do not understand why we have it in the first place. It's convenient, but a bit ugly (and I guess it survives since it's so small). However, as you pointed out, if we do use it for tests, why not for winetests, it fits in the same category, it's convenient, and we can use it almost as is (this is the only thing we do in our Makefile):
winetests_cross.exe: $(CROSSOBJS:_so.res.cross.o=_pe.res.cross.o) $(CROSSCC) $^ -o $@ $(IMPORTS:%=-l%) $(LIBS)
So Alexandre, what say you? :) We'd really like to get this in and move forward, there still so much work to do on this front. Let's not lose momentum.