(sorry for the late answer, three days of 16+ hours/day migration aren't fun, UPS battery exploding inside the UPS almost in my face even less)
> -----Original Message----- > From: Hrvoje Niksic [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Herold Heiko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > do have a compiler but aren't really developers (yet) (for example > > first year CS students with old lab computer compilers). > > From my impressions of the Windows world, non-developers won't touch > source code anyway -- they will simply use the binary. I feel I must dissent. Even today I'm not exactly a developer, I certainly wasn't when I first placed my greedy hands on wget sources (in order to add a couple of chars to URL_UNSAFE... back in 98 i think). I just knew where I could use a compiler and followed instructions. I'd just like wget still being compilable in an old setup by (growing) newbies, for the learning value. Maybe something like a small note in the windows/Readme instructions would be ok, as by the enclosed patch ? > The really important thing is to make sure that the source works for > the person likely to create the binaries, in this case you. Ideally > he should have access to the latest compiler, so we don't have to > cater to brokenness of obsolete compiler versions. This is not about I must confess I'm torn between the two options. Your point is very valid, on the other hand while it is still possible I'd like to continue using an old setup exactly because there are still plenty of those around and I'd like to catch these problems. Unfortunately I don't have the time to test everything on two setups, so I think I'll continue with the old one till easily feasable. > Also note that there is a technical problem with your patch (if my > reading of it is correct): it unconditionally turns on debugging, > disregarding the command-line options. Is it possible to save the old > optimization options, turn off debugging, and restore the old options? > (Borland C seems to support some sort of "#pragma push" to achieve > that effect.) It seems not, msdn mentions push only for "#pragma warning", not for "#pragma optimize" :( > optimization, or with a lesser optimization level. Ideally this > would be done by configure.bat if it detects the broken compiler > version. I tried but didn't find a portably (w9x-w2x) way to do that, since in w9x we can't redirect easily the standard error used by cl.exe. Possibly this could be worked around by running the test from a simple perl script, on the other hand today perl is required (on released packages) only in order to build the documentation, not for the binary, adding another dependency would be a pity. > You mean that you cannot use later versions of C++ to produce > Win95/Win98/NT4 binaries? I'd be very surprised if that were the Absolutely not, what I meant is, later versions can't be installed on older windows operating systems. I think Visual Studio 6 is the last MS compiler which runs on even NT4. > > Personally I feel wget should try to still support that not-so-old > > compiler platform if possible, > > Sure, but in this case some of the burden falls on the user of the > obsolete platform: he has to turn off optimization to avoid a bug in > his compiler. That is not entirely unacceptable. I concur, after all if a note is dropped in the windows/Readme either they will read it, or they will stall due to OpenSSL dependencies (on by default) anyway. Heiko -- -- PREVINET S.p.A. www.previnet.it -- Heiko Herold [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- +39-041-5907073 ph -- +39-041-5907472 fax
20050420.winreadme.diff
Description: Binary data
