The only thing I don't like in my proposal is the win32 name, namely the 32. I guess Win64 will go in the same namespace, as well as win16. This is confusing. What about winxx or even better winapi?
Windows uses the same header files for both Win32 and Win64. It is Win32 if _WIN32 is defined and Win64 if _WIN64 is defined.
On 64 bit platforms we can never get 100% Win32 source compabillity because of compiler problems. If fact we can't get 100% Win64 support either for the same reasons so I guess Wine on 64-bit platforms will be some kind of pseudo mode.
So we probably should have the same include directory for Win32 and Win64. As for the name well I think I like "windows" best.
plus a bunch of other things (like making it easy to use other headers for the Win32 API, etc). And best of all, it seems to be easily implementable, no?
"mv" is your friend however the CVS versioning doesn't like
it though...
We don't have to move anything in the tree, just modify where we install stuff. Of course, this means that you will not be able to use your tree include files in all cases, but I think it's good as a start.
Perhaps.
On November 29, 2002 01:43 pm, Patrik Stridvall wrote:
On 64 bit platforms we can never get 100% Win32 source compabillity because of compiler problems. If fact we can't get 100% Win64 support either for the same reasons so I guess Wine on 64-bit platforms will be some kind of pseudo mode.
Why are you saying that? What about the current difference between the sizeof(wchar_t), it wasn't such a big deal. Can't we have other flags in the great tradition of -fwchar-short?
-
Dimitrie O. Paun -
Patrik Stridvall