[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.liballeg.org/allegro-developers Archives
]
> > For MSVC 6 and MSVC 7, the /GB flag is default so it doesn't really
> > need to be there anyway. (According to the /? help anyway.)
>
> IMHO there is no problem with removing /GB
Agreed. As it doesn't seem to be actually needed, I wonder why it's there
at all...
> For MS haters: do whatever you want with allegro 4.3+, however 4.2
> should stay msvc compliant.
It has nothing to do with hating Microsoft, it has to do with their
compiler not implementing C99 features we might/will need (stdint.h being
an obvious one) -- which is somewhat fair as it's supposed to be a C++
compiler, not a C compiler, deprecating standard C library functions
(though I doubt they'll have the nerve to actually remove them) and being
generally a pain when it comes to helping write cross-platform code.
Lets be realistic for a moment: it's going to be very hard to support a
compiler none of the main developers has that doesn't follow a standard
you're trying to follow and runs on an operating system no one (of the
main developers) uses on a regular basis.
Thank god there are people like AJ and Matthew (sorry if I forgot to credit
anyone here) who run the code through the compiler now and then and report
issues, or it'd have bitrotted long ago.
On that note, would any of you guys be interested in being appointed MSVC
maintainer, as we recently declared Peter Hull the new MacOS X maintainer?
(Actually, it would be good to make a clear list for 4.3 who will be
monitoring what port and what subsystem primarily, but I digress).
If it were about hating Microsoft, we could just as well drop Windows
support and save ourselves a huge headache ;)
(As well as a lot of work, since it'd be much like suicide)
So relax, although you might see some frustrated Microsoft bashing now and
then, plans to drop MSVC support altogether aren't very realistic, in my
opinion.
Evert