On 1/30/2011 1:54 AM, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom>  wrote:
>> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>> Trying to work out what went wrong, and why, from the damn code, and the
>>> code that built the code, and the code that ran the code, that built the
>>> code... o.O
>
>> Precisely. When the configuration file to create the build tools is based on
>> turing-complete macro processing, you're gonna just be screwed if there's
>> anything wrong.
>
>    So let me get this straight: He was trying to compile a program with
> Visual C++, the project did not have a Visual C++ project file, he was
> trying to compile it in Windows which is not Unix and hence does not use
> the same core tools, and consequently he had big problems in compiling
> the program. Yet this is still somehow a problem with makefiles.
>
>    It seems to me that anybody could make a post with any random problem
> they had, and if a makefile was somehow involved, you would immediately
> rush to agree with a "precisely!" answer regardless of what was the real
> cause of the problem.
>
It did have a VC++ project file, unfortunately that project file 
included calls to Unix tools, to generate the changes needed to make it 
compile. A project file is just another name for a MAKE file (at least 
on Windows). It has processing logic, and can call externals, etc.

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message