httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Marr <gr...@alum.wpi.edu>
Subject RE: MS VC++ with 2.0
Date Wed, 26 Apr 2000 22:22:07 GMT
At 05:57 PM 04/26/2000, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>Thank you for the suggestion. But my primary concern really revolves 
>not around the core team and occasional contributors, but the apache 
>admins who will be using 2.0.  Granted, some will be developers with 
>the latest and greatest (probably 7.0) compiler, but I know many 
>software hacks who dropped that interest in favor of networking and 
>internet works, and hardware hacks who moved to the software side.

There isn't a 7.0 yet, 6.0 is still the latest.  Since 5.0 reads the 
current DSPs when converted to 6.0 without a problem, the exported 
makefiles aren't version specific, and the only reason to pick one 
over the other is to prevent loads of unnecessary changes in CVS, 
then what the apache admins are using shouldn't have to affect the 
decision.

>Ya realize I wouldn't even be arguing this if we weren't talking 
>about a defaulted project pragma, a numeric stamp and line 
>continuation.  There are really -no- fundimental differences that 
>I've identified between the project files!!!  Let's also consider 
>that converters to the Borland/Watcom/etc IDE's may recognize 5.0 
>files, but not 6.0/7.0.

With the current options, that is correct.  There are, however things 
that we could do in 6.0 that aren't backwards-compatible with 5.0, 
such as setting debugging information to "Program database for edit 
and continue," or using the automatic delay loading provided by the 
new linker.  As long as we avoid those, then we won't require people 
updating to 6.0.

--
Greg Marr
gregm@alum.wpi.edu
"We thought you were dead."
"I was, but I'm better now." - Sheridan, "The Summoning"


Mime
View raw message