Congradulations - windef.h
julliard at winehq.org
Fri Jan 2 12:19:26 CST 2004
"Dimitrie O. Paun" <dpaun at rogers.com> writes:
> There's no reason it shouldn't work. However, if we have
> a lot of defines, it becomes a bit hard to maintain them
> embedded in winegcc. Also, it would allow people to use
> gcc directly instead of winegcc (for whatever reason).
> It would be a wine/ header, and to be honest, I can't see
> any fundamental reason why we can't have a few well defined
> wine/ private headers. I'm on the fence on this issue, I
> don't need the header myself, but I can see a decent
> argument why you'd want to externalize these things out
> of winegcc...
Sure, there are good arguments for both approaches. I was under the
impression that Boaz was saying that the current way didn't work at
all, in which case of course it needs to be changed. But otherwise
it's just a winegcc implementation detail, and I see no compelling
reason for changing it now, especially since winegcc is still going to
need quite a bit of work.
julliard at winehq.com
More information about the wine-devel