Author Topic: Build CodeBlocks: wx261 or wx262?  (Read 2467 times)

Offline grunerite

  • Multiple posting newcomer
  • *
  • Posts: 41
Build CodeBlocks: wx261 or wx262?
« on: December 26, 2005, 03:33:37 am »
Hello,

I want to build Code::Blocks from SVN checkout, using MinGW3.4.4, and I guess a non-UNICODE version b/c info on forum makes me think there are still problems with UNICODE version (correct?).

Now, info on the WIKI pages says to use WX2.6.1+patches to build Code::Blocks (non-unicode version). Can I use wx2.6.2 for non-unicode version build, and if so, are there any wx  patches that I need to get it to build Code::Blocks?

Thanks,
grunerite

Offline grunerite

  • Multiple posting newcomer
  • *
  • Posts: 41
Re: Build CodeBlocks: wx261 or wx262?
« Reply #1 on: December 26, 2005, 07:10:03 am »
I want to build Code::Blocks from SVN checkout, using MinGW3.4.4, and I guess a non-UNICODE version b/c info on forum makes me think there are still problems with UNICODE version (correct?).

Now, info on the WIKI pages says to use WX2.6.1+patches to build Code::Blocks (non-unicode version). Can I use wx2.6.2 for non-unicode version build, and if so, are there any wx  patches that I need to get it to build Code::Blocks?
I answer my own questions again (sorry!). Yes, 2.6.2 works, no patches needed, and even the Unicode version builds fine.

In addition to the path changes described in Wiki, I had to make 1 change to the cbp file "CodeBlocks-NewBuild-UNI.cbp". The codecompletion project was missing the codecompletion/parser/searchtree.cpp and .h files from the project file list.

This was relatively painless, from getting SVN checkout, building wxWidgets, to building Code::Blocks. Just followed the Wiki. Good Job guys.
grunerite

Offline thomas

  • Administrator
  • Lives here!
  • *****
  • Posts: 3979
Re: Build CodeBlocks: wx261 or wx262?
« Reply #2 on: December 26, 2005, 12:53:13 pm »
Whatever you want... wx2.6.1 with and without patch, and wx2.6.2 work with MinGW 3.4.2 and 3.4.4 (with two or three pedantic errors fixed, you can even use gcc 4.1). It should also be possible to compile using gcc 3.2 (and maybe even 2.x), although you will have to disable precompiled headers.

I use (and recommend) wx2.6.2 with gcc 3.4.4.
"We should forget about small efficiencies, say about 97% of the time: Premature quotation is the root of public humiliation."