On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 08:42:12AM -0800, Gurucharan Shetty wrote: > On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 8:30 AM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 07:43:28AM -0800, Gurucharan Shetty wrote: > >> windefs.h will be included inside config.h. Since config.h > >> should ideally be included by all the header files, windefs.h > >> will automatically be included while compiling on windows. > >> The file is eventually expected to have some typedefs > >> and #defines to make code compile on windows. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Gurucharan Shetty <gshe...@nicira.com> > > > > I have mixed feelings about this because it starts to mix platform and > > compiler dependencies. If one were to use GCC (from mingw) as the > > compiler, then the "typedef char bool;" would not help, it would > > actually prevent compiling. In fact, I'm not sure how it helps with > > MSVC, since presumably that compiler doesn't have <stdbool.h> and will > > complain when we try to include it? > > The way the windows port (which is a work in progress) is structured > right now in an internal repo is > to have the following headers in include/windows. Most of the files > are empty to prevent compiler complaints. I guess, it also helps to > prevent multiple #if WIN32 in the .c files of the upstream repo.
That's reasonable in some cases, I agree. But in this particular case I think it would be better to simply create a stdbool.h that implements what C99 wants in that header (which is "bool" and "true" and "false" and another macro). I think that, if we can implement individual headers in a straightforward way, then it is generally better to do that than to throw everything into a single header that is auto-included via config.h. ... > Now, without those header files and some changes in the .c files, any > of the patches that I supplied in this patch series won't successfully > compile using the visual c++ compiler. My idea was mainly to send in > patches that does not hurt the compilation in any other platforms > (i.e., linux or freebsd) and also prep the structure of the upstream > repo so that other code can move in. > > Do you feel that individual patches for the windows port should > compile when using the visual c++ compiler. > > Also, as you mentioned, if we use gcc in mingw, that will be a > problem. Do you have a nicer idea? Well, do you have an opinion whether the port should support Windows as a platform or specifically Windows-on-MSVC as a platform? I haven't been sure what the exact goal is; if it's only to support MSVC, then worrying about GCC is moot and I'll stop doing that. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
