If you list the functions you have in mind, and the names of the headers normally used to introduce their signatures, I will double-check the VC++ 2008 and VC++ 2010 libraries to see what the status is.
- Dennis -----Original Message----- From: Michael Stahl [mailto:m...@openoffice.org] Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 08:43 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: How to do with glibc-2.1.3 in AOOo? On 14.09.2011 17:23, Pedro F. Giffuni wrote: > Thanks Tor, this is all good to know! > > --- On Wed, 9/14/11, Tor Lillqvist <t...@iki.fi> > wrote: .... >>> The question is why do we need >> this? I would think >>> all supported platforms have standard conformant C/C++ libs. >> >> Yeah, but the code uses non-standard library functions, >> apparently. > > Both of these appear to be standard (now?) perhaps. but see below :) >> See external/glibc/makefile.mk. Apparently what's needed is >> getopt() > > In FreeBSD we were using an independent library in some ports to > support getopt_long but the regular library now supports the GNU > extensions. If it's needed it can be taken from there. if it's not in a C standard at least 20 years old then usually MSVC doesn't have it. >>> In the same line of questioning, but not a license issue, why do >>> we need STLport? >> >> (In LibreOffice we don't use STLport any more on any platform.) >> Your code presumably still relies on some STLport stuff on Windows. >> Anyway, even if AOOo itself wouldn't use STLport itself, if you >> want to be binary compatible with binary extensions, those might >> rely on the OOo installation containing a STLport shared library so >> you need to build and ship it. >> > > I think we should just follow LO on this one. The STLport OOo carries > is outdated and the latest versions in sourceforge (2008) are not > very well maintained (broken on MacOS X and BSD, AFAICT). only reason why OOo ships STLport is ABI compatibility of the URE and for C++ UNO extensions. we wanted to get rid of it for OOo 4.0 anyway.
