Bidi B patch
vberon at mecano.gme.usherb.ca
Wed Jun 25 15:57:03 CDT 2003
Le mer 25/06/2003 à 16:01, Shachar Shemesh a écrit :
> >>Only because we add "-I." to the compilation flags. Adding "-I." to
> >>the compilation flags should not be necessary.
> >It is necessary, this has been discussed before.
> I'll try to find the discussion (if someone has a handy pointer - it
> would be greatly apretiated), but if it turns out that it is necessary
> because we use "" instead of <>, I don't think that counts ;-)
IIRC, it was something about building Wine out of tree. The (many) -I.
or similar in gcc args while building Wine are for that, too.
> Ok, how about if I send you a perl program that goes over the wine
> include folder, searches for each file found there in the MS SDK, and
> builds a list of exported headers. It will then go over the wine source,
> and change only those headers from "" to <>. This way, no manual work,
> no changing "" to <> and then back (as gdi.h will, obviously, not be in
> that list), and we have a clear consistant policy that makes sense. This
> also solves the winelib problem you mentioned.
There's a part of the janitorial page which says that Wine's headers
include too much stuff, and should be trimmed down to what Windows
headers include. Not exactly the same thing, but probably a good use of
Perl (meant as an advertisement for the task, not asking you to do it
More information about the wine-devel