Re: [Harbour] Re: OS/2: Harbour 13015

2009-11-25 Thread Viktor Szakáts
> Viktor Szakáts wrote: >> But, back to your actual problem, you must be using some other legacy >> functions which makes this file pulled in. IMO you could simply solve your >> problem by changing this legacy call to the new equivalent, and legacyco.c >> would not be linked at all. That's the r

Re: [Harbour] Re: OS/2: Harbour 13015

2009-11-25 Thread Mindaugas Kavaliauskas
Hi, Viktor Szakáts wrote: But, back to your actual problem, you must be using some other legacy functions which makes this file pulled in. IMO you could simply solve your problem by changing this legacy call to the new equivalent, and legacyco.c would not be linked at all. That's the reason

Re: [Harbour] Re: OS/2: Harbour 13015

2009-11-25 Thread Viktor Szakáts
> Przemysław Czerpak wrote: >> BTW I would like to start build tests on different platforms. >> I hope that we will release final 2.0 before Christmas. > > This is perhaps a question to Viktor. When the depreciated function support > expires? Do we have some rules for this? We have rules for HB_

Re: [Harbour] Re: OS/2: Harbour 13015

2009-11-25 Thread Mindaugas Kavaliauskas
Hi, Przemysław Czerpak wrote: BTW I would like to start build tests on different platforms. I hope that we will release final 2.0 before Christmas. This is perhaps a question to Viktor. When the depreciated function support expires? Do we have some rules for this? Actually I have a problem

[Harbour] Re: OS/2: Harbour 13015

2009-11-25 Thread David Arturo Macias Corona
Przemek: >Yes but it was easy to fix when the problem was reported and now we >have cleanly divided compiler and linker flags. For many years none of >us has wanted to touch this problem and clean it. It is fine >BTW I would like to start build tests on different platforms. >I hope that we will

Re: [Harbour] Re: OS/2: Harbour 13015

2009-11-25 Thread Alex Strickland
Przemysław Czerpak wrote: I think it's too big modification to introduce it just before new release and I will want to work on it without any dead lines. I've committed everything what I planed for next stable release and now I think it's time to give it to users and also allow 3-rd party develo

Re: [Harbour] Re: OS/2: Harbour 13015

2009-11-25 Thread Przemysław Czerpak
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009, Alex Strickland wrote: Hi, > >BTW I would like to start build tests on different platforms. > >I hope that we will release final 2.0 before Christmas. > Do you have any plans to introduce HB_FCREATE() etc before final version? I think it's too big modification to introduce i

Re: [Harbour] Re: OS/2: Harbour 13015

2009-11-25 Thread Alex Strickland
Przemysław Czerpak wrote: BTW I would like to start build tests on different platforms. I hope that we will release final 2.0 before Christmas. Do you have any plans to introduce HB_FCREATE() etc before final version? Regards Alex ___ Harbour maili

Re: [Harbour] Re: OS/2: Harbour 13015

2009-11-25 Thread Przemysław Czerpak
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009, David Arturo Macias Corona wrote: Hi, > >Viktor recently cleaned compile and link time switches and the above > >is samll side effect of this modification which should be easy to fix. > Even so "small" it stoped everything :-) Yes but it was easy to fix when the problem was

[Harbour] Re: OS/2: Harbour 13015

2009-11-25 Thread David Arturo Macias Corona
Viktor, Przemek: >Viktor recently cleaned compile and link time switches and the above >is samll side effect of this modification which should be easy to fix. Even so "small" it stoped everything :-) >Thanks for the report, this is related to this change: >2009-11-25 11:11 UTC+0100 Viktor Sza