Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
On Feb 20, 2007, at 7:23 AM, Gregory Shimansky wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
On Feb 19, 2007, at 3:49 PM, Gregory Shimansky wrote:
Alexei Zakharov wrote:
Hi Ivan,
Thank you for doing this first of all. IMO patches look good in
general. However, I'd like to emphasize two things (I've already told
you in private about them) and let others to comment on it.
1. In your patch you suggest to use MSVC 2005 - msvcr80.dll is used
instead of msvcr71.dll for example. Currently MSVC 2003 is required
for building the classlib. However, MSVC 2005 adds extensive support
for developing of 64bit applications and it looks like a natural
choice for 64bit Windows platform. So am +1 for supporting both MSVCs.
But I also would like to know if there are any other opinions.
I think it would be good if we had a choice of microsoft tools
version. If we can support MSVC 2005 on x86_64, why not allow to use
it on x86 too? The only freely available development environment
from MS site is MSVC 2005 Community Edition. So if we support it, it
will help development for x86 version of windows.
Well... does it work? besides the rt dll issue, what else is
there? Is nmake backwards compatible? I thought one problem was
that 2005 was missing something that 2003 had...
I am not aware of anything missing in 2005. There are two problems
with it. It introduced new "secure" versions of functions like strcmp
and deprecated the standard C API. Including standard headers produces
many warnings that the functions are now deprecated. But it can be
worked around by adding two defines to the compiler command line to
make headers backwards compatible.
Right - I remember that - I was trying to use 2005 a while ago, and came
to the same conclusion.
Another problem is some new manifests stuff which I don't know very
well. Apparently now when linker produces a dll or exe file it also
creates a manifest which should be either present in the same
directory, or be embedded inside of the executable or dll.
That seems simple enough.
Both of the above problems are probably solved in the patches by Ivan,
so these solutions may be applied to the x86 version as well to allow
people to use MSVC 2005 on plain 32-bit windows.
Lets just be sure we don't hurt the 2003 users :)
Absolutely. I just said that we could have 2005 as an option on x86
windows, not that we should switch to it.
--
Gregory
