On 06.02.2012 20:20, Thaddy wrote:
On 6-2-2012 19:54, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote:
The Microsoft way is not the same as the Free Pascal way. We are not
required to immitate them when implementing our routines. The
Microsoft way has nasty side effects: 1> makes it impossible to
support Unicode and support Windows 9x at the same time, but I doubt
that Free Pascal wants to drop Windows 9x support (even if it is
obsolete). 2> Breaks the interface because the string type changed
No, this is not true, not at all, to the contrary, that's what the PE
flag is for:
If you want to compile for any windows version, choose ansi mode and the
OS "respects" and "expects" that.
If you want a unicode default (i.e. win2000 and higher) choose unicode
mode.
The library should be totally opaque when the programmer decides what he
wants.
What you are doing is making changes in the generated code that shoukld
be resolved at compile time.
This can be resolved at link time, but I expect it should be resolved at
compile time.
That's why I agree with you that changes are necessary.
(Although the PE flag is a linker instruction)
What we are required to do is respect the OS we compile for.
There is no option to set anything unicode related in the linker
according to this page:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/y0zzbyt4.aspx
So what are you talking about?
Regards,
Sven
_______________________________________________
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
