apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: Modifying Win32 default optimizations?
Date Wed, 11 May 2005 15:45:08 GMT
At 08:46 AM 5/11/2005, Branko Čibej wrote:
>>All in all - comments?
>How about moving away from MSVC 6 to (say) VC.Net 2003, while we're at it? It's time,
to say the least.

Not for 1.3 or 2.0 httpd - you lose some measure of binary
compatibility.  We can jump through hoops to continue to use
the msvcrt.dll but it's suboptimal.  To pick up msvcr70.dll
will cause some measure of pain.

I'm willing to consider moving to Visual C 7 for binary builds
of httpd-2.1+ if enough of the community is behind it.  For that 
matter, perhaps its time to drop Win9x support from httpd-2.1+ (?)
If your thought is no - lots of people still use 9x - then also
consider that lots of people are quite happy with their VC 5 or 6
and it just continues to work for them.

Here's an example of the issue;
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/dia-list/2003-March/msg00141.html

Nothing stops YOU today from using VC7, in fact VisualStudio
will gladly parse the .dsp files into .vcproc's, .dsw into .sln.
The question, rather, is what clib and compiler to use to create
the binary distributions - and right now, 

We obviously want users to be able to elect /GS compilation under
VC7 for stack guard sentinels.

If the open source community tends to push back on Microsoft's
newest compilers, it's simply because their forced treadmill is
the anathema of inclusiveness.

At 10:45 AM 5/11/2005, Branko Čibej wrote:
>99% of the work of moving from MSVC6 to any flavour of VC.Net is in converting the project
files. So it doesn't matter if the target is 2003 or 2005.

That would be 1% of the work.  Visual Studio.NET does that work for you.
Bill 



Mime
View raw message