Author Topic: Code::Blocks Unicode  (Read 9067 times)

Offline me22

  • Official tester
  • Multiple posting newcomer
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • TA Universe
Code::Blocks Unicode
« on: March 30, 2005, 04:36:02 am »
Ok, well, I finally made enough adjustments to the codebase to get it to compile and link with a unicode wxGTK 8) Unfortunatly, it now crashes early -- while still in the opening messageboxes. :oops:

I've uploaded all the .cpp and .h files ( most were changed, although a few weren't ) in a zip to: http://www.uploadthis.co.uk/uploads/me22/codeblocks-1.0-beta6-unicode-overlay.zip

Extract that overtop of an extracted  codeblocks-1.0-beta6.tar.gz ( overwriting, obviously ).  It also seems that the
LIB_WXSTC=wx_gtk2_stc-$(WX_VER)
LIB_WXXRC=wx_gtk2_xrc-$(WX_VER)
lines in Makefile.unix need to be changed to
LIB_WXSTC=wx_gtk2u_stc-$(WX_VER)
LIB_WXXRC=wx_gtk2u_xrc-$(WX_VER)
in order for it to link.

Hopefully someone who knows how to fix this kind of thing will have better luck =/

$ ./codeblocks-1.0-beta6/output/run.sh
Xlib: unexpected async reply (sequence 0x1864)!
Xlib: sequence lost (0x11864 > 0x1a2c) in reply type 0x0!
The program 'codeblocks.exe' received an X Window System error.
This probably reflects a bug in the program.
The error was 'BadImplementation (server does not implement operation)'.
  (Details: serial 6244 error_code 17 request_code 20 minor_code 0)
  (Note to programmers: normally, X errors are reported asynchronously;
   that is, you will receive the error a while after causing it.
   To debug your program, run it with the --sync command line
   option to change this behavior. You can then get a meaningful
   backtrace from your debugger if you break on the gdk_x_error() function.)

Offline rickg22

  • Lives here!
  • ****
  • Posts: 2283
Code::Blocks Unicode
« Reply #1 on: April 06, 2005, 08:25:37 pm »
Question. Do you think you could have time to try compiling wxwidgets with unicode, under window (not linux)? Or you have Linux only? (it's not mandatory, i'm just asking)

Also, mind posting an example of a change you would make on the code (like "before", "after") so current developers (like me) won't make the work harder for you? (I don't know A THING about unicode, that's what i'm saying :wink: )

Thanks!

Offline rickg22

  • Lives here!
  • ****
  • Posts: 2283
**IMPORTANT RESOURCE**
« Reply #2 on: April 06, 2005, 08:48:33 pm »
http://www.wxwidgets.org/manuals/2.5.4/wx_unicode.html

Apparently this is what Code::Blocks has been missing.

Anyway I'm for moving all the literal strings onto separate files/resources (or even header files in the short term) so they can be changed in only one place. (Multitier to the max, baby! ;-) )

Offline rickg22

  • Lives here!
  • ****
  • Posts: 2283
Code::Blocks Unicode
« Reply #3 on: May 29, 2005, 05:20:25 am »
OK, now that we got find in files working, who wants to add the _() and _T() macros to the  literal strings in all the source code? :)

*Crickets chirping*

Offline squizzz

  • Almost regular
  • **
  • Posts: 132
Re: **IMPORTANT RESOURCE**
« Reply #4 on: May 29, 2005, 10:46:20 am »
Quote from: rickg22
Anyway I'm for moving all the literal strings onto separate files/resources

That would be really great - then i.e doing various translations of C::B would be very easy (in the future I mean).
this space is for rent

Anonymous

  • Guest
Code::Blocks Unicode
« Reply #5 on: May 29, 2005, 05:48:27 pm »
That's what I did in that file aboce, rickg...

Offline takeshi miya

  • Lives here!
  • ****
  • Posts: 1487
Code::Blocks Unicode
« Reply #6 on: June 01, 2005, 01:28:30 pm »
I think it's more easy to put _() and _T() rather than to split in different files, because for example poEdit doesn't need the file separation thing.

Offline rickg22

  • Lives here!
  • ****
  • Posts: 2283
Code::Blocks Unicode
« Reply #7 on: June 01, 2005, 06:39:32 pm »
me22: Sorry, I've been TOO lazy :(. Anyway, maybe you'd like developer access to the CVS. See, with all the changes from beta6 to final-beta (which would be like beta8) I don't know if your changes still apply... argh :( I'm so sorry, perhaps we should have given you access from the beginning. Anyway let me see if I can start modifying the code - or should we do that after 1.0 is released? :? (confused)