one last piece of advice:

-lanything does not belong in LDFLAGS.  It should go in LIBS.  This
matters for ordering.

but remember that LDFLAGS=-lcomctl32
got the gui up and running

after dlltool to libcomctl32.a


this was all due to the un-arrogant assistance from:
Tim S
and Nicolas

Thanks a million guys!


now how does that splash screen get changed?

Post a reply to this message

alphaQuad wrote:
> to thorston: in your face! lol
> you have no sense of humor and a bad attitude,
> I'd be alot happier if you had a sense of humor and stayed on topic.

What exactly did I do to you? You *emailed* me your first post on this topic
to make sure I would actually notice a four year old thread. I take the time
to respond with plain facts to your request if someone could bother do the
VC 6 porting work for you, while you go on to complain about lack of
POV-Ray's compiler documentation for MinGW, and then I have a "bad
attitude"? Argh :-(

	Thorsten

From - Mon Nov 26 17:35:53 2007
X-Account-Key: account2
X-UIDL: 0MKpEa-1IwgvM2UBL-0006s0
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-Mozilla-Keys:

Return-Path: <alp### [at] earthlinknet>
Delivery-Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 17:35:09 +0100
Received-SPF: none (mxeu20: 207.69.195.72 is neither permitted nor denied by
domain of earthlink.net) client-ip=207.69.195.72;
envelope-from=alpha-quadrant@earthlink.net; helo=pop-sarus.atl.sa.earthlink.net;
Received: from pop-sarus.atl.sa.earthlink.net
(pop-sarus.atl.sa.earthlink.net [207.69.195.72])
	by mx.kundenserver.de (node=mxeu20) with ESMTP (Nemesis)
	id 0MKpEa-1IwgvM2UBL-0006s0 for thorsten@trf.de; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 17:35:09
+0100
Received: from 64-178-34-149.chi-02.cvx.algx.net ([64.178.34.149] helo=hansolo)
	by pop-sarus.atl.sa.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.36 #1)
	id 1IwgvL-00051a-00
	for tho### [at] trfde; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 11:35:07 -0500
Message-Id: <3.0### [at] earthlinknet>
X-Sender: alp### [at] earthlinknet
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 10:35:12 -0600
To: tho### [at] trfde
From: alp### [at] earthlinknet
Subject: Re: Compiling POVRAY 3.5 using VC6.0 in Release Mode
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-SpamScore:   0
	tests=
Envelope-To: tho### [at] trfde

From: alphaQuad
Subject: Re: Compiling POVRAY 3.5 using VC6.0 in Release Mode
Date: 26 Nov 2007 15:40:00
Message: <web.474ae7b2791be3821b4d6a30@news.povray.org>


"Mike Raiford" <mraiford [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> "Thorsten Froehlich" <thorsten [at] trfde> wrote in message
> news:402cac9f$1@news.povray.org...
>
> > Sorry, this is plain incorrect.  Valid source code cannot result in
> invalid
> > compiled program code unless the compiler is defective.  And VC 6.0 is
> > notorious for its bugs.  The POV-Ray source code makes no use of undefined
> > or platform specific properies of C/C++.
>
> Hm. I've had no problems building POV-Ray on VC6 at all. The program builds
> fine, and runs fine. There's obviously something wrong with his
> configuration causing the build to fail. I have to wonder if the part he's
> trying to build that may be causing the failure is the editor portion which
> was meant to be compiled under Borland C++ Builder ...


is this 3.5 source code still around? Do you know where I can download it?

just how many hours would it take to rewrite 3.6 to VC6 code?
40? 400? 4000?

Post a reply to this message

Thorsten Froehlich <tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
> alphaQuad wrote:
> > to thorston: in your face! lol
> > you have no sense of humor and a bad attitude,
> > I'd be alot happier if you had a sense of humor and stayed on topic.
>
> What exactly did I do to you? You *emailed* me your first post on this topic
> to make sure I would actually notice a four year old thread. I take the time
> to respond with plain facts to your request if someone could bother do the
> VC 6 porting work for you, while you go on to complain about lack of
> POV-Ray's compiler documentation for MinGW, and then I have a "bad
> attitude"? Argh :-(

too serious you are my friend,

You did nothing to me.
I made the mistake of thinking you might be able to help.

when all I got was upgrade to what you can afford and no help. and then not even
laughing at a good joke.

too serious


but I really came back to say that libcomctl32.a is in mingw so you dont even
have to use dlltool.

what really chaps is that 19 guys knew that it would take typing about 2 words
to help and complete the instructions but chose to remain silent.

2 Words!
LDFLAGS=-lcomctl32

Post a reply to this message

> what really chaps is that 19 guys knew that it would take typing about 2 words
> to help and complete the instructions but chose to remain silent.
> 
> 2 Words!
> LDFLAGS=-lcomctl32

What makes you think everybody knew the answer and they didn't want to 
tell you?

Post a reply to this message

Dear Thorsten,

All was meant in the sincerest fun and no harm intended.
All apologies if you got your feelings hurt.

probably a language thing

Post a reply to this message

Seriously, let me make it up to you.

Can I buy you a new OS?

Post a reply to this message

alphaQuad wrote:
> All was meant in the sincerest fun and no harm intended.
> All apologies if you got your feelings hurt.

Never mind, no problem.

	Thorsten

PS: Probably you know, but just to say it ... it isn't considered
particularly good netiquette to email in response to newsgroup posts :-)

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> wrote:

> > what really chaps is that 19 guys knew that it would take typing about 2 words
> > to help and complete the instructions but chose to remain silent.
> >
> > 2 Words!
> > LDFLAGS=-lcomctl32
>
> What makes you think everybody knew the answer and they didn't want to
> tell you?

it was another board not this board.

I expected I'd should have made that clear as well.

Post a reply to this message

Thorsten Froehlich <tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
> alphaQuad wrote:
> > All was meant in the sincerest fun and no harm intended.
> > All apologies if you got your feelings hurt.
>
> Never mind, no problem.
>
>  Thorsten
>
> PS: Probably you know, but just to say it ... it isn't considered
> particularly good netiquette to email in response to newsgroup posts :-)

Such flew the cuckoo's nest and did not occur to me.
Taken under advisement. thank you.

walking the thin line between ...

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> wrote:

 > > what really

Nic,
I saw another post of yours, where you made an optimized exe for someone.

Great respect for your knowledge and experience.

Peace, out

Post a reply to this message