> -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Sebor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin Sebor > Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 5:54 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Interix > > Eric Lemings wrote: > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Martin Sebor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 1:03 PM > >> To: [email protected] > >> Subject: Re: Interix > >> > >> Eric Lemings wrote: > >>> FYI. > >>> > >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interix > >>> > >>> I like it (Windows SFU/SUA) better than Cygwin. > >> The page says that > >> > >> "The most recent releases of Interix, 5.2 and 6.0, are > components > >> of the Windows Server 2003 R2 and Windows Vista > distributions..." > >> > >> Does it mean that it's available out of the box on every Win2k and > >> Vista box? It'd be great if we could use the same infrastructure > >> on Windows as we do UNIX, if only for nightly testing. > > > > Not sure about 2003 but it's a "feature" of Vista that is > disabled by > > default. From what I've seen, it's actually just an install manager > > that downloads the software from Microsoft and installs it. > So it is > > available "out of the box" in that respect. :) > > > > In any case, it's a pretty simple download and install > procedure. It > > is supported on XP as well. > > We should give it a try, especially since, as you said, it comes > with a UNIX wrapper for MSVC. I wonder if compiling with it will > turn MSVC into a UNIX compiler. If so, we'll need to change > a boatload of #ifdef _MSC_VER conditionals in our code so as not > to necessarily automatically assume Windows.
It's just an a gcc-like interface to the MSVC compiler. I don't think it really changes anything operationally. I'm not sure whether it defines _MSC_VER in a similar fashion. Also, I'm sure there are places where _MSC_VER is being used when _WIN32 or similar Windows OS macro should be used. I think that's what you meant? Brad.
