 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thorsten Froehlich <tho### [at] trf de> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thorsten Froehlich 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 :-)
Why not? If there is something to say that is irrelevant to the whole
group I wouldn't see the problem. I actually received a number of
e-mails as response to some of my posts here over the years and in all
cases I could see why they weren't posted in the newsgroups. I am in
general glad they did mail me.
I know the converse rule viz. that you should not post a personal e-mail
in a newsgroup without permission from the sender, but I guess you
weren't referring to that one. ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
this was a newsgroup post not a private email.
the "gods" have found time to speak.
for the sake of completeness it must be posted here.
begin:
> >-lanything does not belong in LDFLAGS. It should go in LIBS. This
> >matters for ordering.
> >
> >Brian
>
> ya but LDFLAGS=-lcomctl32
> got the GUI up and runinng!
>
> what should I be reading now regarding "It should go in LIBS"?
Brian is 100% correct. Autotooled makefiles pass two macros (in
particular) to ld; one is LDFLAGS, the other is LIBS. Technically,
LDFLAGS should be reserved for library search paths, i.e. the likes of
LDFLAGS='-L /path/to/libs ...', while the libs themselves should be
passed through LIBS='-lsomelib ...'. LDFLAGS are passed early in the
link argument list; LIBS come last, where the libraries must be listed.
That you were successful using LDFLAGS=-anything may be fortuitous, but
LIBS=-lsomething is the correct way, and is more robust.
Regards,
Keith.
:end
as I see it pov 3.7 source can have a makefile.gcc with working gui linker
once sound and help sdk issues are solved (and 95 dist-msg edits).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
