User forums > Using Code::Blocks
.def & import library names
MortenMacFly:
--- Quote from: johne53 on February 14, 2010, 07:52:28 pm ---When/where did Ceniza propose something? There's no proposal in this thread AFAICT.
--- End quote ---
If it was in this thread I wouldn't ask... I am not that lazy. :lol:
We had that discussion already after the patch was applied in another thread. It got lost on the way as other things were more important to me. However, I cannot find this thread anymore, but it was a fruitful discussion. I think Ceniza just has to look in his history around that time and can pinpoint us easily.
johne53:
--- Quote from: MortenMacFly on February 14, 2010, 07:55:10 pm ---If it was in this thread I wouldn't ask... I am not that lazy. :lol:
--- End quote ---
No offence meant... :)
thedmd:
Here it is:
--- Quote from: Ceniza on August 14, 2009, 12:50:25 pm ---
--- Quote from: jens on August 14, 2009, 11:56:05 am ---
--- Quote from: Ceniza on August 14, 2009, 11:49:38 am ---
--- Quote from: MortenMacFly on August 14, 2009, 11:15:08 am ---
--- Quote from: Ceniza on August 14, 2009, 10:47:56 am ---When the user wants to create a non-as-common-as-a-plain-.dll-file (like .Plugin),
--- End quote ---
Notice that this was only *one* problem.
Even worse was if you tried to create a System.Management.DLL file. This did not work, too. And that's the one I was referring to at most. Because such misbehaviour is in fact not acceptable.
--- End quote ---
What was wrong with System.Management.DLL again? (I have forget only memory)
--- End quote ---
If I remember right, it was turned int "System.dll" .
--- End quote ---
Well... with an extension field you should not have that problem.
Output file name: System.Management (user input)
[ ] Use custom extension (unchecked)
Custom extension: dll (default shown, empty, previous value, ...)
Full output file name: System.Management.dll (read-only)
Full import lib file name: libSystem.Management.a (read-only)
Is it too bad an idea?
--- End quote ---
johne53:
There's an obvious problem with that suggestion.... it seems to apply the custom extension even though the option to Use custom extension was left unckecked. To be honest, If you read my suggestion (from a few posts back) and put some thought into it, I really think it's a much more elegant solution.
MortenMacFly:
--- Quote from: thedmd on February 14, 2010, 09:02:32 pm ---Here it is:
--- End quote ---
Exactly! That was it. But now that I read it again I also recall the problem I had with this:
Currently we put the prefix and extension automatically to the name of the library for convenience. But doing that and using Ceniza's suggestion would mean that the extension gets added over and over again... :-(
--- Quote from: johne53 on February 14, 2010, 10:56:23 pm ---If you read my suggestion (from a few posts back) and put some thought into it, I really think it's a much more elegant solution.
--- End quote ---
Do you mean this one:
--- Quote from: thedmd on February 14, 2010, 12:01:00 pm ---Import library: $(OutDir)$(TargetFileName)$(DefaultImportExtension)
--- End quote ---
???
Here the problem is: What if a user puts "foo.dll" in the target name field? Would it become foo.dll.a and foo.dll.dll then? If so then I can tell you that we will get "bug reports" on that issue.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version