Developer forums (C::B DEVELOPMENT STRICTLY!) > Development

Win9x build/support of CB

<< < (5/7) > >>

Ceniza:
I wonder if someone was interested in seeing this:



Really, this time it'sn't me playing with MS Paint (well, I cut the screenshot using it, nothing else) :P

Really, believe it, it's GDB 6.3 running on Windows 98, and it no longer depends on that NT-only DLL.

Anyone interested in the url?

[Edit by Rick: Fixed the broken url.]

Ceniza:
[edit]
Rick: Thanks for fixing the link :D
[/edit]

Please report how it works. Those using any Windows NT (NT4/2k/XP/2k3/Vista) are free to update to that version too, I did already, but haven't tried yet.

duncanka:

--- Quote from: Ceniza on January 05, 2006, 02:24:44 am ---If you'ven't noticed, the link is there, but since the idea is to help, here's again: gdb.

Please report how it works. Those using any Windows NT (NT4/2k/XP/2k3/Vista) are free to update to that version too, I did already, but haven't tried yet.

--- End quote ---
:shock: :shock: It works!!! HOORAY!! :D :D :D (Using Win98SE)
Thank you so much for pointing this out!

killerbot:
so what's left to decide is (since GDB no issue ):

1) CB as seperate ansi, or CB as libunicows (or no CB for win9x)
2) as much support as possible for it in the cbp/make files, so very little needs to be changed by hand if you want to build them both !!!


Lieven

Ceniza:
Rick told me there's a bug when debugging with a Unicode version of Code::Blocks, so it should be ANSI in the meanwhile.

Someone with access to the project files in SVN should add those libraries to target SDK. Those won't hurt the current Unicode build but will help 9x builds.

After that, dunno, providing Unicode and ANSI is twice the work, twice the time. Only ANSI wouldn't be a problem, but they relly want us to convert to Unicode. And, at the end, using libunicows seems to be a hack.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version