[DGD] DGD For MSys, mark 2

[Jared Maddox]

> Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2013 13:18:25 +0100
> From: "Felix A. Croes" <felix at dworkin.nl>
> To: dgd at dworkin.nl
> Subject: Re: [DGD] DGD For MSys, mark 2
> Message-ID: <E1Tr6ED-0002A6-Mi at pattern>
>
> Jared Maddox <absinthdraco at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> This patch applies the same way as the other does. Please bear in mind
>> that this patch DEPENDS on the previous one, so if you're applying
>> this one you must first apply the other. And here's the new-new patch:
>
> This patch not only sets HOST to MSys in the Makefile, but also uses
> MSys as the C-level platform macro.  DGD won't compile this way; there
> should probably be separate Makefile variables, with the one passed on
> to the compiler set to WIN32.
>

At first I was wondering how this was so, since I distinctly remember
successfully compiling it with the first AND second patches (the
second was because the first was somewhat dubious), but then I
remembered that I actually DO have a second Makefile variable:
PLATFORM_DEFINES= -D_WIN32_WINNT=0x501
This is one of the things that is added in the first patch, and
actually originates with my previous MSys port. Some declarations in
the windows headers won't even show up without that specific variable
being set to either that value, or a higher one.

There might be a larger set of variables that it would be wise to set,
but that one seems to get the compilation done.

Note that I'm not actually certain about specifically setting the host
to MSys. MSys itself is distinguished with a variable called MSYSTEM,
the value of which indicates whether you're compiling ON MSys, or ON
MSys FOR MSys (these aren't actually the same, since MSys apparently
adds something to better simulate a *nix environment). I ignored the
value itself, since DGD already has code to compile for Windows.

Am I using HOST correctly?

What's your opinion on makeheader.win? I wanted to make that code
somewhat modular, so that it could be adapted to e.g. Haiku, if anyone
wanted to do that in the future. Also, I thought that it was impairing
readability by being in the main makefile.

I'm worried that this patch series will prevent compilation on Cygwin.
Can you test this? I don't have Cygwin installed on my machine, and
would prefer to not dabble in it.

Should the "HOST_OVERRIDE" switch be enough for any other *nix-ish
platforms on Windows?

Also, any idea why comp/parser.h / comp/parser.c, host/dosfile.c /
host/dosfile.o, and host/windgd.c / host/windgd.o don't get deleted on
"make clean"? Did I accidentally break something?

Anything else that I should work on for this patch series (I recall
some of the pre-compiler stuff causing problems, but I don't want to
deal with that yet)?

> Regards,
> Felix Croes
>

Incidentally, it looks like the web browsing for the mailing list is
down (Secure Connection Failed error on Firefox). Is there somewhere
to check for it other than your site?

I would ask whether it's ok to add some particular features, but I
don't actually want to do those at the moment.