Hrvoje Niksic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> This doesn't look right to me, because if _MSC_VER is defined, it >> includes <malloc.h> without the "# define alloca _alloca" line that >> other people seem to have needed. > > I haven't needed that line in Wget. Maybe it was needed in older > versions of Visual C?
More likely it's the other way around. <http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/wb1s57t5(en-us,vs.80).aspx> indicates that Visual Studio 2005 doesn't define alloca. And <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_id=5120&max_rows=25&style=nested&viewmonth=200403> suggests that a #define for alloca was removed from mingw last year. >> Also, what is the difference between _MSC_VER, __BORLANDC__, and >> __MINGW32__? Are these different compilers? > > They are different compilers. What they have in common is that they > (these days) run in the Win32 environment, Is there a single symbol that all three define? I'd rather not have to maintain a list of Microsoft Windows 32 compilers. (And please don't call it "Win32", as it's not a win. A better name is "32-bit Windows operating environment", or "Woe32".) For example, <http://megapov.inetart.net/manual-1.2/binaries.html> talks about __BORLANDC__, __DJGPP__, __MINGW32__, __CYGWIN__, __DMC__, and __WATCOMC__. I doubt whether even this list is exhaustive. Nor do I know which of these compilers require <malloc.h>. This sounds like a job for an Autoconf test rather than for trying to guess from predefined macros. But someone with some Woe32 expertise will be needed to write the test.
