From: Earnie B. <ea...@us...> - 2007-02-08 12:51:47
|
Do we think it might be time to change the default value defined in windef.h from 0x0400 to 0x0500? Cygwin is moving to no support for w9x/ME and MS is no longer supporting w9x/ME either. The value change doesn't prevent use on w9x/ME it just means those users need to set the value lower themselves. Earnie Boyd -- Please post responsibly: * Use text posts instead of html; many list members just trash mail with html. * Do not use multipart mime to send both text and html versions. * Do not top post replies; post inline with the parts you are responding to. * Trim the post replies; remove irrelevant information from the quoted article. * Original posters: ** Provide small complete examples of the problem. ** Provide the full command that produced errors. ** Provide the versions of the software used. |
From: Kai T. <Kai...@on...> - 2007-02-08 13:42:34
|
Why not increasing it to 0x0501 for defaulting to XP ? The Windows 2000 lifecycle is near the end as to read on the MS pages. Regards, Kai Tietz |
From: techtonik <tec...@us...> - 2007-02-08 14:49:38
|
On 2/8/07, Kai Tietz <Kai...@on...> wrote: > Why not increasing it to 0x0501 for defaulting to XP ? > The Windows 2000 lifecycle is near the end as to read on the MS pages. "The end is near" is no reason for suicide. Let it happen first. -- --t. |
From: Earnie B. <ea...@us...> - 2007-02-08 15:44:31
|
Quoting Kai Tietz <Kai...@on...>: > Why not increasing it to 0x0501 for defaulting to XP ? > The Windows 2000 lifecycle is near the end as to read on the MS pages. > I thought about it for a second. I then turned to my right and right there glaring me in the face was a server with w2k. It would be too soon IMO. But then again, how many people are developing for w2k? I wouldn't be upset over targetting XP as the minimum standard for MinGW. Quoting techtonik <tec...@us...>: > > "The end is near" is no reason for suicide. Let it happen first. > It's a lynching not suicide. The noose is around the neck loosely. Are you targeting w2K servers with development? Earnie |
From: Chris S. <ir0...@gm...> - 2007-02-08 17:20:07
|
> I thought about it for a second. I then turned to my right and right > there glaring me in the face was a server with w2k. It would be too > soon IMO. But then again, how many people are developing for w2k? I > wouldn't be upset over targetting XP as the minimum standard for MinGW. I, for one, still develop for win2k. Having said that, as it was pointed out, I already set WINVER as required. Chris -- Chris Sutcliffe http://ir0nh34d.googlepages.com http://ir0nh34d.blogspot.com http://emergedesktop.org |
From: Danny S. <dan...@cl...> - 2007-02-08 18:27:03
|
> -----Original Message----- > From: min...@li... > [mailto:min...@li...] On Behalf > Of Chris Sutcliffe > Sent: Friday, 9 February 2007 6:20 a.m. > To: MinGW Devlopers Discussion List > Subject: Re: [MinGW-dvlpr] Default value of WINVER constant > > > > I thought about it for a second. I then turned to my right > and right > > there glaring me in the face was a server with w2k. It would be too > > soon IMO. But then again, how many people are developing > for w2k? I > > wouldn't be upset over targetting XP as the minimum > standard for MinGW. > > I, for one, still develop for win2k. Having said that, as it was > pointed out, I already set WINVER as required. > > Chris And I still develop and __maintain__ programmes for W98 running on old i586. If we follow the logic that default WINVER should now be 0x501, perhaps we should also make the default -march value in gcc i686 (since XP won't really run on older cpu's) and make the default msvcrt.dll version be about 7.0 (whatever ships with XP). That will suggest to those people who use mingw for older cpu's /WINVER's that maybe it is time to upgrade. That will make Bill happy. What I like about my 1986 Toyota's is that I can still find cheaps parts to keep it going. Danny |
From: Earnie B. <ea...@us...> - 2007-02-08 19:58:47
|
Quoting Danny Smith <dan...@cl...>: > > If we follow the logic that default WINVER should now be 0x501, perhaps > we should also make the default -march value in gcc i686 (since XP won't > really run on older cpu's) and make the default msvcrt.dll version be > about 7.0 (whatever ships with XP). > It may be worth considering even though you were trying to be sarcastic. ;P I would really like to do that but understand what that means and don't want to upset the apple cart that much. The WINVER value though is something that is supposed to be set before including windows.h If changing the default value now breaks your build, then it is easily remedied. Earnie |
From: techtonik <tec...@us...> - 2007-02-08 20:41:51
|
On 2/8/07, Danny Smith <dan...@cl...> wrote: > > > > I, for one, still develop for win2k. Having said that, as it was > > pointed out, I already set WINVER as required. > > And me too likes W2K. > And I still develop and __maintain__ programmes for W98 running on old > i586. Should we first make a historical release of MinGW tools for Win98? If you'll arrange all required packages - I can wrap an installer for MSYS MinGW DTK Just tell me what is where. > If we follow the logic that default WINVER should now be 0x501, perhaps > we should also make the default -march value in gcc i686 (since XP won't > really run on older cpu's) and make the default msvcrt.dll version be > about 7.0 (whatever ships with XP). It sounds reasonable to stick with i686 - but still historical release should be done for those who cares about Pentium. -- --t. |
From: Charles W. <cwi...@us...> - 2007-02-09 02:06:50
|
Danny Smith wrote: > and make the default msvcrt.dll version be > about 7.0 (whatever ships with XP). I know you are "illustrating absurdity by being absurd", but one thing to point out: msvcrt.dll is the only C runtime DLL that is "part of the OS". The others, msvcrt70.dll, *71.dll, *80.dll, etc -- are runtimes distributed with Microsoft Visual Studio of various vintages. Therefore, these other closed-source DLLs -- not being "part of the OS" -- don't fall under the special exception in section 3 of the GPL: "However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable." (Yeah, there's some wiggle room since 'compiler' is listed as a 'major component' -- but on MSWIN, the compiler is not generally distributed to end users WITH the OS, unlike many other platforms...maybe this is enough wiggle room for some people, but I'm not sure I want to rely on it.) Plus: (1) unless you own Visual Studio, you can't distribute those other runtime DLLs (2) even if you DO, you can't bundle the up-versioned runtime DLLs with your GPL'ed application, because that would completely negate the special exeption above, whether you buy the "wiggle room" argument above or not! (via "unless that component itself accompanies the executable"). Finally (3): Assuming the "wiggle room" argument is valid, suppose you build a GPL'ed app using mingw against one of the up-versioned runtimes -- and further suppose you own Visual Studio but just don't use it. Now (maybe) the GPL is happy and the EULA is happy -- but your users are not happy. Your app requires a runtime library not available on every machine, BUT you don't distribute that runtime library. Not good. So, switching to the other runtime DLLs by default, would seriously hamper using MinGW to build GPL software, IMO. -- Chuck |
From: Aaron W. L. <aar...@aa...> - 2007-02-09 03:20:46
|
Charles Wilson wrote: > Therefore, these other closed-source DLLs -- not being "part of the OS" > -- don't fall under the special exception in section 3 of the GPL: This is a huge pain. I've contacted RMS at the FSF about an issue related to this that affects GCC. Basically, he completely brushed me off, committing to no more than mentioning it to his lawyers. The fact of that matter is that on Windows we have all sorts of redistributable stuff that probably really is 'part of the OS' but isn't present in many initial installations. libunicows is one of the most famous instances, if one of the least problematic. If there is some way we could get this cleared up, it would be a spectacular advancement for Windows GNU targets. Anyone following GPLv3 who can comment on this? Anyone familiar with some other GNU or GPL project that found a way around this? |
From: <ja...@so...> - 2007-02-08 19:23:45
|
Chris Sutcliffe writes: >> I thought about it for a second. I then turned to my right and right >> there glaring me in the face was a server with w2k. It would be too >> soon IMO. But then again, how many people are developing for w2k? I >> wouldn't be upset over targetting XP as the minimum standard for MinGW. > > I, for one, still develop for win2k. Having said that, as it was > pointed out, I already set WINVER as required. I tend to agree here. I am writing this email on Win2k because XP would probably slow my tired old laptop down more than it is worth. I do write programs to run on my 2k, but as stated setting your WINVER for whatever you wish to target is not that big of a deal. For what it's worth, it seems that the standard for most "Windows Programs" you can find on the net seems to be Win2k/XP, so I personally think it would be premature to go straight to XP. --Jason A. Craig |
From: Paul G. <pga...@co...> - 2007-02-08 22:13:19
|
On 8 Feb 2007 at 10:43, Earnie Boyd wrote: > Quoting Kai Tietz <Kai...@on...>: > > > Why not increasing it to 0x0501 for defaulting to XP ? > > The Windows 2000 lifecycle is near the end as to read on the MS > > pages. > > > > I thought about it for a second. I then turned to my right and right > there glaring me in the face was a server with w2k. It would be too > soon IMO. But then again, how many people are developing for w2k? Umm...lots and lots. Those Enterprise Interests (Read "IT") who didn't purchase a license/upgrade to Windows XP Pro when it came out are still running Windows 2000. Paul G. |
From: Paul G. <pga...@co...> - 2007-02-08 22:08:57
|
Yes. As much as I am hesitant to change version numbers for windef.h, with the recent release of Win XP Home/Pro and Windows 2000 (well, not so recent really) and now Windows Vista (editorial on Windows Vista has been cut), it seems logical. On 8 Feb 2007 at 7:50, Earnie Boyd wrote: > Do we think it might be time to change the default value defined in > windef.h from 0x0400 to 0x0500? Cygwin is moving to no support for > w9x/ME and MS is no longer supporting w9x/ME either. The value change > doesn't prevent use on w9x/ME it just means those users need to set > the value lower themselves. I agree. I trust that has already been documented. Paul G. |