Developer forums (C::B DEVELOPMENT STRICTLY!) > Development
Build CodeBlocks using Microsoft Visual C++
MortenMacFly:
--- Quote from: Loaden on April 06, 2011, 03:39:25 am ---
--- Quote from: ollydbg on April 06, 2011, 03:36:00 am ---@loaden
someone has used a msvc compiler to build the codeblocks, he just released it on sourceforge. Sorry I can't find the link now.
--- End quote ---
OK, I try search now.
--- End quote ---
It's here:
http://forums.codeblocks.org/index.php/topic,13454.msg90615.html#msg90615
(http://cb4vc.sourceforge.net/)
But I see no reason why we should try to make C::B compile with VC. C::B was designed to support the GCC compiler and only the GCC compiler. Support for VC will force us to use a lot of #defines which will make the code look very ugly and this is clearly not what we want. In the fact we've removed a lot portions in the code concerning VC (like pragmas and alike) because it really made the code hard to read. So whatever you come out with, please do not commit.
Loaden:
Success for Release Build, But still occured some error when use Debug build.
--- Quote ---advancedcompileroptionsdlg.obj||error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol "__declspec(dllimport) void __cdecl wxOnAssert(wchar_t const *,int,char const *,wchar_t const *,wchar_t const *)" (__imp_?wxOnAssert@@YAXPB_WHPBD00@Z) referenced in function "void * __cdecl wxCheckCast(void *)" (?wxCheckCast@@YAPAXPAX@Z)|
compilererrors.obj||error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol "__declspec(dllimport) void __cdecl wxOnAssert(wchar_t const *,int,char const *,wchar_t const *,wchar_t const *)" (__imp_?wxOnAssert@@YAXPB_WHPBD00@Z)|
compilergcc.obj||error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol "__declspec(dllimport) void __cdecl wxOnAssert(wchar_t const *,int,char const *,wchar_t const *,wchar_t const *)" (__imp_?wxOnAssert@@YAXPB_WHPBD00@Z)|
compileroptionsdlg.obj||error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol "__declspec(dllimport) void __cdecl wxOnAssert(wchar_t const *,int,char const *,wchar_t const *,wchar_t const *)" (__imp_?wxOnAssert@@YAXPB_WHPBD00@Z)|
--- End quote ---
Loaden:
--- Quote from: MortenMacFly on April 06, 2011, 06:30:41 am ---It's here:
http://forums.codeblocks.org/index.php/topic,13454.msg90615.html#msg90615
(http://cb4vc.sourceforge.net/)
--- End quote ---
Thanks!!
--- Quote from: MortenMacFly on April 06, 2011, 06:30:41 am ---But I see no reason why we should try to make C::B compile with VC. C::B was designed to support the GCC compiler and only the GCC compiler. Support for VC will force us to use a lot of #defines which will make the code look very ugly and this is clearly not what we want. In the fact we've removed a lot portions in the code concerning VC (like pragmas and alike) because it really made the code hard to read. So whatever you come out with, please do not commit.
--- End quote ---
I don't think so, Only need a little guard code (like #ifdef _MSC_VER), and seems very clearly.
Some reasons:
1. Use MSVC's Debug Tools for find some crash
2. Get VC compiler warnings to correct the code
3. VC is better and faster than GCC in Windows OS
Morten, could you view the patch? If you fell the VC Support Code is so *ugly*.
Loaden:
BTW, The V6 patch only support mini core CB code now.
In currently, there not include Debugger, OpenFileList....
When using GDB, some crash is difficult to capture.
I think this project (for MSVC) should be usefull.
ollydbg:
@loaden
it seems you add a lot of DLLIMPORT before the class declaration. But why they are not needed when build with MinGW GCC?
You patches v6 contains a lot of duplicated piece code. (which means: you don't change anything on the code, maybe, there are some space, tabs added/moved)
From my point of view, if the change code is quite minimal, then I think adding for the VC build could be added. :D
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version