Viktor Szakáts wrote: > >> I've just check HBMK2 code and I do not know if Viktor can help you much. >> In fact the problem is that xHarbour uses different switches for MT and >> ST libraries and not all core libraries are compiled for MT mode. It >> means that all xHarbour MT BCC binaries are potentially broken because >> they contains code compiled for MT and ST mode. Such things cannot >> be fixed by HBMK2. You simply need xHarbour binaries fully recompiled >> with -tWN. Otherwise it may not be safe to create any MT application. >> Anyhow if you do not need any MT code and you are creating only ST >> applications then it should be enough to add some switch to HBMK2 which >> will force ST in BCC compiler and linker but only in XHB compatibility >> mode. Harbour is correctly compiled and linked in MT safe mode so Viktor >> cannot use -st switch for it because it would break correctly compiled >> Harbour and xHarbour binaries. It has to be sth different, i.e. -xhb >> switch can be extended to -xhb[st]. > > Is it not enough to select between -tWM / cw32mt and > -tW / cw32 based on the -st/-mt flag when in -xhb > mode? > > Given that we only support non-broken xhb builds. > > I'm not really positive on adding extra hbmk2 options > just to cover broken tools. >
Reasonablt it can be controlled with -st switch. But Przemek's point is also valid. For me I only compile in ST mode in xHarbour and always with MT mode in Harbour. ----- enjoy hbIDEing... Pritpal Bedi http://hbide.vouch.info/ -- View this message in context: http://harbour-devel.1590103.n2.nabble.com/hbMK2-xHarbour-Oct-2007-Unresolved-External-tp5033192p5042998.html Sent from the harbour-devel mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ Harbour mailing list (attachment size limit: 40KB) Harbour@harbour-project.org http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour