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

Reply via email to