On 18 Aug 2003, Martin Wilck wrote: > I am not sure what manipulations you're talking about;
Look at winegcc.c. If we do that one in C, it just makes sense to do winewrap in C as well. Plus it's more extensible for the future, me thinks. > AFAICS the hard > stuff is done by winebuild anyway. What I don't like about C in this > case is that all the low-level stuff (realloc() and friends) makes the > code hard to read and prone to buffer overflows and the like. There is a patch pending which removes most of that. Not a biggy, really. > Yeah, the wine guys like low-level coding :-) > Perhaps I'll contribute a bash version of winewrap soon, just for fun. Try doing winegcc in standard sh, I doubt you'll get any shorter/cleaner code. Not to mention a bit slower :) -- Dimi.