Re: [xml] RFC: mingw autoconf && config.h vs. win32config.h



In 2.4.24, the win32/Makefile.mingw didn't work as it had in 2.4.23
and I've been using the Linux Debian MinGW cross-tools and thought
that configuring with autoconf, etc. would be nice especially now that
the MinGW team has provided us with MSYS.

The Makefile.mingw I was playing with was never in the CVS. I totally
rewrote it and it is very similar to the MSVC makefile. But, since I ended
the game with those link problems, I never commited the makefile.

I *personally* would like to see the DLL built with libtool but
apparently that support is only in the CVS tree of libtool right
now. But that's just me and my reasoning is skewed toward the GNU
tools ;-)

You may build the DLL with steel and concrete for all I care, as long the
required modiifications don't break existing things :-)

Right, but the ./configure makes a "config.h" and there is some
selection process in nanohttp.c that included win32config.h and did
not include config.h. To my understanding, Winsock is very similar to
the standard so perhaps an addition of various #define's within
config.h would allow cross-compatability with relativly minimal

I saw you adding those defines in nanohttp.c, not in config.h :-)

Please correct me if I'm wrong on this; my win32 book does not have
socket information in it.

It has a mandatory initialisation and shutdown and completely different
error codes. The rest should be the same.

Someone recently posted information on a patch for building on MSYS
with much less fuss so perhaps this is not needed, and indeed, if and
when this is implemented, I shall receive much better feedback.

I would say rather establish a contact and do the MSYS port together with
others who need it.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]