[sword-devel] PocketPC Development -- _WIN32_WCE #ifdef(s) and other questions

[Herb Ledebohm]

That's what I thought and I agree.  Since the #ifdef(s) would primarily be
for system services (file/directory, time, etc.), these things should be
broken out into OS specific abstraction layers (like the FileMgr class you
mention).  I'm actually pleasantly surprised at how much of the code
compiles just fine.

A good example of where some work is needed is in untgz.c which includes
files like time.h, fcntl.h, io.h and errno.h to name a few.  None of these
exist for WCE.  Although the functionality required can be provided, there
will have to be changes made to get it working.  Unless you guys are really
pressed to get this done asap, I'd like to take the time to get familiar
with all the code and make the changes myself.  I just wanted to get a feel
for the preference on this.  I know at my place of employment, there are
very strong opinions on these issues ;)

Some of the items that might be best in an osal:
File/Directory (yes, including read/write/seek)
System (time, etc)
Memory Mgmt (maybe? -- haven't gotten this far yet)
Process/Thread Mgmt (again, maybe?  -- haven't gotten this far yet)

Forgive me please, if I'm mentioning things already considered/done.  I'm
still finding my way around.

Thanks!
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Troy A. Griffitts" <scribe@crosswire.org>
To: <sword-devel@crosswire.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 3:09 AM
Subject: Re: [sword-devel] PocketPC Development -- _WIN32_WCE #ifdef(s) and
other questions


> Herb,
> If the wince compiler is still so non-standard as to not support our
> ANSI/ISO compliant C++ code, then microsoft, like always, still sucks :)
>
> I'd prefer you NOT clutter the code will a million ifdef's.  Can you
> give me an example?  We already added a bunch of stuff to get it to
> compile once on the wince compiler.  I took much of it out because there
> are better ways to handle some of the things that were ifdef'd.  Please
> give me an example and maybe I can add something for you that will help.
>
> Most of the file io routines should be isolated in the FileMgr class,
> so writing your own FileMgr replacement should do the trick.  We can
> consider moving the read/write/lseek calls to FileMgr methods if this
> will help you.
>
> I'm sorry if I don't sound too friendly toward microsoft.  We've
> already cluttered our code with a number of workarounds for their
> non-conformant compiler and it just makes me angry.  Nothing personal.
>
> -Troy.
>
>
>
> Herb Ledebohm wrote:
> > What is the stance on me adding a number of these to the source?
> > #ifdef _WIN32_WCE ...or... #ifndef _WIN32_WCE
> >
> > If you guys prefer that we don't litter up the code with a bunch of
> > definition checks like these then I'll need to break out some of the
code
> > (which I'll have to do for directory/file services, system time, etc.
> > anyway) and handle it in the project file.
> >
> > Comments?  Preferences?
> >
> > Also, I'm leaning towards supporting only PocketPC2002+ since that is
the
> > toolset I have.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > sword-devel mailing list
> > sword-devel@crosswire.org
> > http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
>
> _______________________________________________
> sword-devel mailing list
> sword-devel@crosswire.org
> http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel