Subject | Re: [IB-Architect] Win16 |
---|---|
Author | reed mideke |
Post date | 2000-08-01T18:27:34Z |
Hi Mark!
willaby@... wrote:
I can't imagine where WINDOWS_ONLY was abused that way in the core
product. I know that the makefiles >never< define it. So it would have
to be something literally defined in the file that needed it, or
something like
#define WINDOWS_ONLY
#include "some_lame_header.h"
#undef WINDOWS_ONLY
The other possiblity is that it was done in the old server manager or
wisql code, but these aren't included in the source release.
--
Reed Mideke rfm(at)cruzers.com
If that doesn't work: rfm(at)portalofevil.com
willaby@... wrote:
>Are you sure ? I seem to remember SUPERCLIENT being misused, but
> Hi -
>
> All references to HARBOR_MERGE can be safely removed. These were just
> placeholders and there was a 'procedure' which we tried to follow when
> checking in modules.
>
> As for WINDOWS_ONLY, be careful. In 90% of the code, removing this define
> is OK, however there are some cases (they escape me at the moment) where
> WINDOWS_ONLY is used in place of WIN_NT (which is generic for all Windows
> platforms).
I can't imagine where WINDOWS_ONLY was abused that way in the core
product. I know that the makefiles >never< define it. So it would have
to be something literally defined in the file that needed it, or
something like
#define WINDOWS_ONLY
#include "some_lame_header.h"
#undef WINDOWS_ONLY
The other possiblity is that it was done in the old server manager or
wisql code, but these aren't included in the source release.
>[...]
> -Mark (former IB engineer)
>
--
Reed Mideke rfm(at)cruzers.com
If that doesn't work: rfm(at)portalofevil.com