Quantcast

Re: _WIN32_WCE vs UNDER_CE

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
10 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: _WIN32_WCE vs UNDER_CE

Pedro Alves-4
On Friday 24 December 2010 22:22:56, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Anyone can explain me meanings and differences between _WIN32_CE &
> UNDER_CE ? UNDER_CE is not defined by CeGCC, while used for some
> #ifdefs. I'm going to replace these with _WIN32_CE in my clean up work
> so far.

Would be useful to know what is it you're thinking you're cleaning up.

UNDER_CE is a builtin define (defined by the compiler).  You can use it
to check whether you're targetting Windows CE, even if you haven't
included any header in your compilation unit.

There is no _WIN32_CE, you mean _WIN32_WCE (I've now fixed the $subject).
_WIN32_WCE is the equivalent of _WIN32_WINNT on desktop Windows.  You define
it to the WinAPI version you want to target (e.g., 0x500), either on
something like CFLAGS, or before including any w32api header.  If you
don't define it to anything, the w32api headers define it to a default
conservative Windows CE version.

Then, there's __COREDLL__ (for coredll.dll).  This is defined by the
compiler, and it selects the C runtime.  On Desktop Windows, this would
be either __MSVCRT__ (for msvcrt.dll), or __CRTDLL__ (legacy, for
crtdll.dll).  Early versions of Windows CE had some other C runtime
dll (I can't remember which now).  In mingw/ code, you always
use __COREDLL__, _WIN32_WCE is verbotten there.

--
Pedro Alves

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Learn how Oracle Real Application Clusters (RAC) One Node allows customers
to consolidate database storage, standardize their database environment, and,
should the need arise, upgrade to a full multi-node Oracle RAC database
without downtime or disruption
http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnl
_______________________________________________
Cegcc-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cegcc-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: _WIN32_WCE vs UNDER_CE

Paul Sokolovsky
Hello,

On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 12:46:08 +0000
Pedro Alves <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Friday 24 December 2010 22:22:56, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Anyone can explain me meanings and differences between _WIN32_CE &
> > UNDER_CE ? UNDER_CE is not defined by CeGCC, while used for some
> > #ifdefs. I'm going to replace these with _WIN32_CE in my clean up
> > work so far.
>
> Would be useful to know what is it you're thinking you're cleaning up.

Hello Pedro, nice to have your attention ;-). I recently sent
several mails to the list pondering how to make what cegcc achieved
more maintainable. In short, my ideas were: extract patches from cegcc
svn repo, clean them up to contain only wince-pertinent changes and
optimize for size (change as little as possible), then use modern SCM
which allows to track upstream close and maintained changes in flexible
manner (read: git).

I currently try to to this for w32api, following procedure I outlined at
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.cegcc.devel/3163 (even though I
already see drawbacks there).

>
> UNDER_CE is a builtin define (defined by the compiler).  You can use
> it to check whether you're targetting Windows CE, even if you haven't
> included any header in your compilation unit.

Ok, I see, it is set up in your mingw32ce-gcc_20091228_r155193.diff
patch.

>
> There is no _WIN32_CE, you mean _WIN32_WCE (I've now fixed the

Yes, sure, that's a typo.

> $subject). _WIN32_WCE is the equivalent of _WIN32_WINNT on desktop
> Windows.  You define it to the WinAPI version you want to target
> (e.g., 0x500), either on something like CFLAGS, or before including
> any w32api header.  If you don't define it to anything, the w32api
> headers define it to a default conservative Windows CE version.
>
> Then, there's __COREDLL__ (for coredll.dll).  This is defined by the
> compiler, and it selects the C runtime.  On Desktop Windows, this
> would be either __MSVCRT__ (for msvcrt.dll), or __CRTDLL__ (legacy,
> for crtdll.dll).  Early versions of Windows CE had some other C
> runtime dll (I can't remember which now).  In mingw/ code, you always
> use __COREDLL__, _WIN32_WCE is verbotten there.

Ok, sounds good, rules for mingw are clear. But original question
popped up while looking at w32api:

$ grep -r -n UNDER_CE --exclude-dir=.svn w32api/include/
w32api/include/ws2tcpip.h:44:#ifdef UNDER_CE
w32api/include/winbase.h:813:#ifdef UNDER_CE
w32api/include/winbase.h:1189:#ifndef UNDER_CE

$ grep -r -n _WIN32_WCE --exclude-dir=.svn w32api/include/ | wc -l
174

As w32api defines _WIN32_WCE first thing and already uses it in 99%
cases, maybe it should use it exclusively?

>
> --
> Pedro Alves



--
Best regards,
 Paul                          mailto:[hidden email]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Learn how Oracle Real Application Clusters (RAC) One Node allows customers
to consolidate database storage, standardize their database environment, and,
should the need arise, upgrade to a full multi-node Oracle RAC database
without downtime or disruption
http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnl
_______________________________________________
Cegcc-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cegcc-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: _WIN32_WCE vs UNDER_CE

Pedro Alves-4
On Saturday 25 December 2010 14:14:10, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:

> On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 12:46:08 +0000
> Pedro Alves <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On Friday 24 December 2010 22:22:56, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > Anyone can explain me meanings and differences between _WIN32_CE &
> > > UNDER_CE ? UNDER_CE is not defined by CeGCC, while used for some
> > > #ifdefs. I'm going to replace these with _WIN32_CE in my clean up
> > > work so far.
> >
> > Would be useful to know what is it you're thinking you're cleaning up.
>
> Hello Pedro, nice to have your attention ;-). I recently sent
> several mails to the list pondering how to make what cegcc achieved
> more maintainable. In short, my ideas were: extract patches from cegcc
> svn repo, clean them up to contain only wince-pertinent changes and
> optimize for size (change as little as possible),

Hello! :-)

IIRC, the w32api wince changes compared to upstream aren't that many
or that invasive that cause trouble when merging from upstream.  The
scheme I was following, was that I kept the CVS (metadata) directories
in our svn repository, so a merge from upstream is literally just a
regular cvs update, and whole diff from upstream is just a "cvs diff".

> then use modern SCM
> which allows to track upstream close and maintained changes in flexible
> manner (read: git).
>
> I currently try to to this for w32api, following procedure I outlined at
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.cegcc.devel/3163 (even though I
> already see drawbacks there).

I haven't looked at your git tree, but I'm not sure what we'd be really
buying with your suggestion.  Instead of adding/removing ifdefs, we're now
actually _changing_ declarations, which is troublesome in its own way at
merge time.  It also hides things from grep and from users when the
compiler/IDEs points "wrong arguments, here's the declaration", so I'm
not convinced it's a change we want.

> Ok, sounds good, rules for mingw are clear. But original question
> popped up while looking at w32api:
>
> $ grep -r -n UNDER_CE --exclude-dir=.svn w32api/include/
> w32api/include/ws2tcpip.h:44:#ifdef UNDER_CE
> w32api/include/winbase.h:813:#ifdef UNDER_CE
> w32api/include/winbase.h:1189:#ifndef UNDER_CE

Agreed.  The winbase.h:813 change (r1278) should have never gone
in like that though :-( :-(

> r1278 | dannybackx | 2009-05-18 11:57:49 +0100 (Seg, 18 Mai 2009) | 2 linhas
>
> Definition for CE for CRITICAL_SECTION taken from http://fpc.freedoors.org/fpc-2.2.0.source/rtl/win/sysosh.inc under LGPL license.

Argh.  LGPL code in w32api headers is not allowed.  :-/

>
> $ grep -r -n _WIN32_WCE --exclude-dir=.svn w32api/include/ | wc -l
> 174
>
> As w32api defines _WIN32_WCE first thing and already uses it in 99%
> cases, maybe it should use it exclusively?

Sure.

--
Pedro Alves

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Learn how Oracle Real Application Clusters (RAC) One Node allows customers
to consolidate database storage, standardize their database environment, and,
should the need arise, upgrade to a full multi-node Oracle RAC database
without downtime or disruption
http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnl
_______________________________________________
Cegcc-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cegcc-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: _WIN32_WCE vs UNDER_CE

Paul Sokolovsky
Hello,

On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 14:32:54 +0000
Pedro Alves <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Saturday 25 December 2010 14:14:10, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
> > On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 12:46:08 +0000
> > Pedro Alves <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Friday 24 December 2010 22:22:56, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > Anyone can explain me meanings and differences between
> > > > _WIN32_CE & UNDER_CE ? UNDER_CE is not defined by CeGCC, while
> > > > used for some #ifdefs. I'm going to replace these with
> > > > _WIN32_CE in my clean up work so far.
> > >
> > > Would be useful to know what is it you're thinking you're
> > > cleaning up.
> >
> > Hello Pedro, nice to have your attention ;-). I recently sent
> > several mails to the list pondering how to make what cegcc achieved
> > more maintainable. In short, my ideas were: extract patches from
> > cegcc svn repo, clean them up to contain only wince-pertinent
> > changes and optimize for size (change as little as possible),
>
> Hello! :-)
>
> IIRC, the w32api wince changes compared to upstream aren't that many
> or that invasive that cause trouble when merging from upstream.

Actually, I have to agree, using such objective criteria, as patch
size, or number of actual conflicts experienced. I now finished 1st
round of my cleanup, and was able to cut size only from 120K to 115K. I
also had just one conflict upgrading to w32api CVS HEAD.

But there's more involved criterion as maintainability, and I believe
my changes improved it. That said, I'll probably will be less vigorous
with in-depth cleanup with other components, instead will try to set
git repos for each first.

>  The
> scheme I was following, was that I kept the CVS (metadata) directories
> in our svn repository, so a merge from upstream is literally just a
> regular cvs update, and whole diff from upstream is just a "cvs diff".

Yes, I got that, that's how I produced w32api-cegcc patchset:

cvs -z9 diff -u -w -B >diff_w_B.diff

(-w -B are part of my "cleanup" plan).

Except that it involves dealing with CVS and its quirks (which I for
example already forgot for good), and lacking base-level DSCM goodness,
like ability to get that diff immediately, with or without network.

>
> > then use modern SCM
> > which allows to track upstream close and maintained changes in
> > flexible manner (read: git).
> >
> > I currently try to to this for w32api, following procedure I
> > outlined at
> > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.cegcc.devel/3163 (even
> > though I already see drawbacks there).
>
> I haven't looked at your git tree,

Yeah, I actually didn't announce it yet, though pushed already and
started to describe. It's here:
https://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/cegcc/wiki/Git%20Migration (feel
free to skip blurb, to "Draft w32api Repository").

> but I'm not sure what we'd be
> really buying with your suggestion.  Instead of adding/removing
> ifdefs, we're now actually _changing_ declarations, which is
> troublesome in its own way at merge time.  It also hides things from
> grep and from users when the compiler/IDEs points "wrong arguments,
> here's the declaration", so I'm not convinced it's a change we want.

I'm not sure what you exactly mean, as I meant procedure of migrating
w32api-cegcc changes to git in such a way as to track upstream closely,
which is at the link above.

I guess, you comment on _WNAME() macro which I proposed in another
mail. Well, one can utter such arguments against it (I already hear
them from GNU bureaucrats ;-) ), but they are not very stable:

1. Changing existing declaration => problem of conflicts. Yes, if that
declaration will be updated in upstream, there will be conflict. But
there's much less chance that declaration will be added than what new
will be added (w32api is still lacking) - right where one of dozen
ifdefs is planted.

2. Grep unfriendly? Why, grep for "Shell_NotifyIcon" and you'll find
what you want. What, you grep for "Shell_NotifyIcon("? Oops, then in
the original w32api you also won't find anything, there's only
Shell_NotifyIconA( and Shell_NotifyIconW(.

3. Compiler error line numbers? Oops, when programming for win32, you
used "Shell_NotifyIcon" in your code and compiler pointed you at
"Shell_NotifyIconA" or "Shell_NotifyIconW". Gotta learn what that
means. Manageable? Then looking up what _WNAME means couple of times
and remembering that should be too.

2&3 show that w32api already not that obvious. But _WNAME is at least
clean change on messy base (it does one specific thing in one specific
way). While #ifdef's are messy change on messy base, let me give more
examples why (in addition to type example I gave before, I saw couple
more already IIRC). There're different structural variants used, like:

#ifdef _WIN32_WCE
void foo();
#else
void fooA();
void fooW();
#endif

and

#ifndef _WIN32_WCE
void fooA();
void fooW();
#else
void foo();
#endif

then, if few goes in row, they are grouped together. Then there're 2
groups with thin layer, like:

#ifdef _WIN32_WCE
void foo1();
void foo2();
..
#endif
void bar1();
#ifdef _WIN32_WCE
void baz1();
void baz2();
..
#endif

Then human editor tries to "optimize" that by moving upstream line at
the top and merging #ifdef chunks, and that goes in rounds and rounds,
without criteria to converge. On the other hand, again, _WNAME does
just what it does, line-local, and there's no proverbial "there's more
than one way to do that".

Final argument is that it's possible to produce #ifdef's from _WNAME
(when wince support will stabilize or upstream will play up), but not
the other way around, per examples above.

>
> > Ok, sounds good, rules for mingw are clear. But original question
> > popped up while looking at w32api:
> >
> > $ grep -r -n UNDER_CE --exclude-dir=.svn w32api/include/
> > w32api/include/ws2tcpip.h:44:#ifdef UNDER_CE
> > w32api/include/winbase.h:813:#ifdef UNDER_CE
> > w32api/include/winbase.h:1189:#ifndef UNDER_CE
>
> Agreed.  The winbase.h:813 change (r1278) should have never gone
> in like that though :-( :-(

Yeah, caught my attention too.
https://github.com/pfalcon/cegcc-w32api-try1/commit/47e68fa3391758aa4e3352a6916ac06c649278a4

>
> > r1278 | dannybackx | 2009-05-18 11:57:49 +0100 (Seg, 18 Mai 2009) |
> > 2 linhas
> >
> > Definition for CE for CRITICAL_SECTION taken from
> > http://fpc.freedoors.org/fpc-2.2.0.source/rtl/win/sysosh.inc under
> > LGPL license.
>
> Argh.  LGPL code in w32api headers is not allowed.  :-/
>
> >
> > $ grep -r -n _WIN32_WCE --exclude-dir=.svn w32api/include/ | wc -l
> > 174
> >
> > As w32api defines _WIN32_WCE first thing and already uses it in 99%
> > cases, maybe it should use it exclusively?
>
> Sure.

https://github.com/pfalcon/cegcc-w32api-try1/commit/be2a26d09e971f81dee8b4787e30ab06d9707eff

>
> --
> Pedro Alves



--
Best regards,
 Paul                          mailto:[hidden email]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Learn how Oracle Real Application Clusters (RAC) One Node allows customers
to consolidate database storage, standardize their database environment, and,
should the need arise, upgrade to a full multi-node Oracle RAC database
without downtime or disruption
http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnl
_______________________________________________
Cegcc-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cegcc-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: _WIN32_WCE vs UNDER_CE

Vincent Torri

Hey,

On Mon, 27 Dec 2010, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:

> https://github.com/pfalcon/cegcc-w32api-try1/commit/be2a26d09e971f81dee8b4787e30ab06d9707eff

shouldn't the critical section be removed if (L)GPL code is not allowed
instead of replacing UNDER_CE by WIN32_WCE (first change) ?

Vincent Torri

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Learn how Oracle Real Application Clusters (RAC) One Node allows customers
to consolidate database storage, standardize their database environment, and,
should the need arise, upgrade to a full multi-node Oracle RAC database
without downtime or disruption
http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnl
_______________________________________________
Cegcc-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cegcc-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: _WIN32_WCE vs UNDER_CE

Paul Sokolovsky
Hello,

On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 18:16:48 +0100 (CET)
Vincent Torri <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Hey,
>
> On Mon, 27 Dec 2010, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
>
> > https://github.com/pfalcon/cegcc-w32api-try1/commit/be2a26d09e971f81dee8b4787e30ab06d9707eff
>
> shouldn't the critical section be removed if (L)GPL code is not
> allowed instead of replacing UNDER_CE by WIN32_WCE (first change) ?

Following commit was in regard to CRITICAL_SECTION:

https://github.com/pfalcon/cegcc-w32api-try1/commit/47e68fa3391758aa4e3352a6916ac06c649278a4

Internally, I removed it, then did some googling (mostly looked at the
search highlight excerpts), friend phoning, few debugging sessions. In
the end, it seemed that structure was laid out right, just comments
were dubious.

Btw, while looking at vendor source may be considered questionable
practice, because vendor source access is granted by a license which
itself, and its licensing process (like changes evolution), don't
receive enough 3rd-party review (and thus may contain *really* funky
things), I consider that (L)GPL and its motivation is sufficiently
known to public, so looking at (L)GPL texts to *get knowledge* is ok.

It's like, some time ago I read in some glossy magazine that wearing
specific model of hat in some specific way would protect my ears from
frost much better than anything else. Not common knowledge on its own.
And I couldn't copy and sell their magazine on my own, in full or in
part, or copy that article to other magazine. But I use that knowledge
since then, including in public, and wasn't requested to stop doing
that or pay royalties. That's because that magazine is like all
other magazines, and they don't do things like that. And there are many
projects which use (L)GPL and stopping spreading of knowledge is not
known to be among their aims. And it's different from the vendor, which
has its proprietary license, motives of which are less clear.

>
> Vincent Torri


--
Best regards,
 Paul                          mailto:[hidden email]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Learn how Oracle Real Application Clusters (RAC) One Node allows customers
to consolidate database storage, standardize their database environment, and,
should the need arise, upgrade to a full multi-node Oracle RAC database
without downtime or disruption
http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnl
_______________________________________________
Cegcc-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cegcc-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: _WIN32_WCE vs UNDER_CE

Pedro Alves-4
On Monday 27 December 2010 18:19:59, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
> Btw, while looking at vendor source may be considered questionable
> practice, because vendor source access is granted by a license which
> itself, and its licensing process (like changes evolution), don't
> receive enough 3rd-party review (and thus may contain really funky
> things), I consider that (L)GPL and its motivation is sufficiently
> known to public, so looking at (L)GPL texts to get knowledge is ok.

No it's not.  <http://www.mingw.org/wiki/SubmitPatches>, point 8.

--
Pedro Alves

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Learn how Oracle Real Application Clusters (RAC) One Node allows customers
to consolidate database storage, standardize their database environment, and,
should the need arise, upgrade to a full multi-node Oracle RAC database
without downtime or disruption
http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnl
_______________________________________________
Cegcc-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cegcc-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: _WIN32_WCE vs UNDER_CE

Paul Sokolovsky
Hello,

On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 18:26:53 +0000
Pedro Alves <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Monday 27 December 2010 18:19:59, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
> > Btw, while looking at vendor source may be considered questionable
> > practice, because vendor source access is granted by a license which
> > itself, and its licensing process (like changes evolution), don't
> > receive enough 3rd-party review (and thus may contain really funky
> > things), I consider that (L)GPL and its motivation is sufficiently
> > known to public, so looking at (L)GPL texts to get knowledge is ok.
>
> No it's not.  <http://www.mingw.org/wiki/SubmitPatches>, point 8.

You probably misread, Pedro, they talk about source, and I'm about
knowledge. I consider it to be a different matter to do dumb cut&paste
and reading an electronic book, even if it's Chinese or C++, to get
understanding of some subject. For example, I could study question of
process synchronization and even remember key points like object member
names, though I doubt I'd remember footnotes or comments, word by word,
or at all. Also, it seems that using LGPL source is allowed after all:
they prohibit GPL and LPGL (sic!).

Everyone's mileage will vary, though. I'm not interested in
upstreaming (I know all this mumbo-jumbo oh so well), so mingw's
specific mileage won't hurt me much. That said, I hereby confirm that I
know of such issues and am doing reasonable effort to follow upstream's
guidelines on the matter. I also know that Pedro Alves and Danny Backx
are aware of these issues and did their reasonable effort to comply
either, so I take their code "as is" as the basis for my work. Specific
cases may be considered later.

>
> --
> Pedro Alves



--
Best regards,
 Paul                          mailto:[hidden email]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Learn how Oracle Real Application Clusters (RAC) One Node allows customers
to consolidate database storage, standardize their database environment, and,
should the need arise, upgrade to a full multi-node Oracle RAC database
without downtime or disruption
http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnl
_______________________________________________
Cegcc-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cegcc-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: _WIN32_WCE vs UNDER_CE

Paul Sokolovsky
Hello,

On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 20:55:49 +0200
Paul Sokolovsky <[hidden email]> wrote:

[]
> Everyone's mileage will vary, though. I'm not interested in
> upstreaming (I know all this mumbo-jumbo oh so well), so mingw's
> specific mileage won't hurt me much. That said, I hereby confirm that
> I know of such issues and am doing reasonable effort to follow
> upstream's guidelines on the matter. I also know that Pedro Alves and
> Danny Backx are aware of these issues and did their reasonable effort
> to comply either, so I take their code "as is" as the basis for my

"their code" == "code they maintained"

> work. Specific cases may be considered later.

--
Best regards,
 Paul                          mailto:[hidden email]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Learn how Oracle Real Application Clusters (RAC) One Node allows customers
to consolidate database storage, standardize their database environment, and,
should the need arise, upgrade to a full multi-node Oracle RAC database
without downtime or disruption
http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnl
_______________________________________________
Cegcc-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cegcc-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: _WIN32_WCE vs UNDER_CE

Paul Sokolovsky
In reply to this post by Paul Sokolovsky
Hello,

On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 18:30:01 +0200
Paul Sokolovsky <[hidden email]> wrote:

[]

> > >
> > > $ grep -r -n _WIN32_WCE --exclude-dir=.svn w32api/include/ | wc -l
> > > 174
> > >
> > > As w32api defines _WIN32_WCE first thing and already uses it in
> > > 99% cases, maybe it should use it exclusively?
> >
> > Sure.
>
> https://github.com/pfalcon/cegcc-w32api-try1/commit/be2a26d09e971f81dee8b4787e30ab06d9707eff

Figured this issue, UNDER_CE usage comes from upstream, so will revert
this patch, as rule "Don't patch upstream without real necessity"
prevails "Have 100% consistency".


--
Best regards,
 Paul                          mailto:[hidden email]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Learn how Oracle Real Application Clusters (RAC) One Node allows customers
to consolidate database storage, standardize their database environment, and,
should the need arise, upgrade to a full multi-node Oracle RAC database
without downtime or disruption
http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnl
_______________________________________________
Cegcc-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cegcc-devel
Loading...