www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Trying to build swdf lib

reply "Yeric" <NOSPAM NOSPAM.com> writes:
Hello

I am trying to build the swdf lib using the supplied makefile, but keep
getting this error

K:\sdwf_01a\smjg\libs\sdwf>d:\dm\bin\make -f makefile
dmd -I..\..\.. -O -c windowbase.d
D:\dmd\bin\..\src\phobos\std\c\windows\windows.d(2231): struct BITMAP
conflicts
with winapi.BITMAP at ..\..\..\smjg\libs\winapi.d(51)

--- errorlevel 1

I am using WinXP, has this got anything to do with the error ?
The makefile is in this directory

K:\sdwf_01a\smjg\libs\sdwf

and technically I did not need to use d:\dm\bin\make  as it is in my path
anyhow

D is in D\dmd\bin
dm is in d\dm

Yeric
Apr 30 2004
parent reply J C Calvarese <jcc7 cox.net> writes:
Yeric wrote:

 Hello
 
 I am trying to build the swdf lib using the supplied makefile, but keep
 getting this error
 
 K:\sdwf_01a\smjg\libs\sdwf>d:\dm\bin\make -f makefile
 dmd -I..\..\.. -O -c windowbase.d
 D:\dmd\bin\..\src\phobos\std\c\windows\windows.d(2231): struct BITMAP
 conflicts
 with winapi.BITMAP at ..\..\..\smjg\libs\winapi.d(51)
 
 --- errorlevel 1
 
 I am using WinXP, has this got anything to do with the error ?
 The makefile is in this directory
 
 K:\sdwf_01a\smjg\libs\sdwf
 
 and technically I did not need to use d:\dm\bin\make  as it is in my path
 anyhow
 
 D is in D\dmd\bin
 dm is in d\dm
 
 Yeric


It's not your fault. And it's not really Stewart's fault either. Walter 
has an annoying habit of adding things to std.c.windows.windows 
little-by-little. What compiled perfectly with DMD 0.82 doesn't compile 
anymore.

You can get it closer to compiling by removing (or commenting out or 
versioning out) the offending code in SDWF. For example, with your error 
message from above, go to ..\..\..\smjg\libs\winapi.d and edit line 51. 
It's probably something like this...
struct BITMAP

If you add a version that's undefined, it won't be compiled anymore...
version(dmd_082) struct BITMAP

Unfortunately, there are probably a couple dozen conflicts like this and 
at least one other conflict. I stopped with I got stuck (and I don't 
have my progress with me anyways -- doh!).

Anyways, it's probably not that hard for Stewart to fix, but it's an 
annoying problem.

-- 
Justin
http://jcc_7.tripod.com/d/
Apr 30 2004
next sibling parent reply "Yeric" <NOSPAM NOSPAM.com> writes:
 It's not your fault. And it's not really Stewart's fault either. Walter
 has an annoying habit of adding things to std.c.windows.windows
 little-by-little. What compiled perfectly with DMD 0.82 doesn't compile
 anymore.


Yes it is annoying :) but if it is for the sake of improvement then that is
good :)

Thanks but I think I will await a new build

Yeric
May 01 2004
parent J C Calvarese <jcc7 cox.net> writes:
Yeric wrote:

It's not your fault. And it's not really Stewart's fault either. Walter
has an annoying habit of adding things to std.c.windows.windows
little-by-little. What compiled perfectly with DMD 0.82 doesn't compile
anymore.


 
 
 Yes it is annoying :) but if it is for the sake of improvement then that is
 good :)


Yes, I'm sure he's trying to be helpful.


 Thanks but I think I will await a new build


Yeah, I'll probably wait, too.


 Yeric
 
 



-- 
Justin
http://jcc_7.tripod.com/d/
May 01 2004
prev sibling parent reply Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:
J C Calvarese wrote:


 Yeric wrote:
 

 Hello

 I am trying to build the swdf lib using the supplied makefile, but keep
 getting this error




<snip>

FTF, it's SDWF, not SWDF.


 It's not your fault. And it's not really Stewart's fault either. Walter 
 has an annoying habit of adding things to std.c.windows.windows 
 little-by-little. What compiled perfectly with DMD 0.82 doesn't compile 
 anymore.


<snip>

 Anyways, it's probably not that hard for Stewart to fix, but it's an 
 annoying problem.


I've just about finished coding up SDWF 0.2, and am working on getting 
it together ready to release.  It includes an updated winapi module.

Stewart.

-- 
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being the 
unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment.  Please keep 
replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.
May 04 2004
parent reply Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:
Stewart Gordon wrote:


 J C Calvarese wrote:
 

 Yeric wrote:


 Hello

 I am trying to build the swdf lib using the supplied makefile, but keep
 getting this error




 
 <snip>
 
 FTF, it's SDWF, not SWDF.
 

 It's not your fault. And it's not really Stewart's fault either. 
 Walter has an annoying habit of adding things to std.c.windows.windows 
 little-by-little. What compiled perfectly with DMD 0.82 doesn't 
 compile anymore.


 
 <snip>
 

 Anyways, it's probably not that hard for Stewart to fix, but it's an 
 annoying problem.


 
 I've just about finished coding up SDWF 0.2, and am working on getting 
 it together ready to release.  It includes an updated winapi module.


Just thinking about it, I'd need to include my fixed 
std.c.windows.windows module as well, at least if the fix doesn't get 
into a DMD release in the next few days.  (I think the only reason for 
keeping a separate smjg.libs.winapi is forward compatibility with 
Walter's "annoying habit".)

See
http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D.bugs/83

-- 
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being the 
unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment.  Please keep 
replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.
May 05 2004
parent reply "Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
Sorry about that. One way to protect against such in the future is when you
add a declaration to your own modules that really should be in windows.d,
qualify it with the name of your module:

    winapi.BITMAP

rather than an unqualified:

    BITMAP
May 15 2004
parent reply J C Calvarese <jcc7 cox.net> writes:
Walter wrote:

 Sorry about that. One way to protect against such in the future is when you
 add a declaration to your own modules that really should be in windows.d,
 qualify it with the name of your module:
 
     winapi.BITMAP
 
 rather than an unqualified:
 
     BITMAP 


Actually, it'd be smjg.libs.winapi.BITMAP that way SDWF's modules are 
set up.

Sound like code-bloat to me.

Apparently, the only way to be phobos-safe with the windows headers is 
to be independent of std.c.windows.windows.


I don't expect anyone's going to look forward to coding like this:

int len = SendMessageA(handle, smjg.libs.winapi.LB_GETTEXTLEN, index, 0);

char[] buf = new char[len+1];

len = SendMessageA(handle, smjg.libs.winapi.LB_GETTEXT, index, 
cast(LPARAM) cast(char*) buf);

Have you considered creating new files with themes, such as 
std.c.windows.winbase?

-- 
Justin (a/k/a jcc7)
http://jcc_7.tripod.com/d/
May 15 2004
parent reply "Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
"J C Calvarese" <jcc7 cox.net> wrote in message
news:c85qmf$234n$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 Have you considered creating new files with themes, such as
 std.c.windows.winbase?


Yes, but does anybody use them, or do they just include windows.h?
May 18 2004
next sibling parent reply J C Calvarese <jcc7 cox.net> writes:
Walter wrote:

 "J C Calvarese" <jcc7 cox.net> wrote in message
 news:c85qmf$234n$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 

Have you considered creating new files with themes, such as
std.c.windows.winbase?


 
 
 Yes, but does anybody use them, or do they just include windows.h?


Is std.c.windows.windows going to stabilize or continue to grow 
sporadically? Can you mention when you make changes or do we have to 
find out from unexpected compile errors?

If you'd add new definitions in an orderly fashion, I think it might 
cause fewer unexpected conflicts for those programmers who have already 
added those definitions to their own projects.

Under the current system, every month or so new definitions appear 
without warning. When you'd fill holes in std.c.w.w (that I'd already 
added to my list), one of our projects wouldn't compile anymore. I know 
it's good to be king, but sometimes the serfs jump the moat and visit 
the next castle.

I've been telling people not to bother with using std.c.w.w and just use 
Mike Wynn's or Y. Tomino's port of the headers. So actually I've already 
lost faith in std.c.w.w anyways. :(

-- 
Justin (a/k/a jcc7)
http://jcc_7.tripod.com/d/
May 18 2004
parent "Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
"J C Calvarese" <jcc7 cox.net> wrote in message
news:c8el6f$b0k$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 Walter wrote:

 "J C Calvarese" <jcc7 cox.net> wrote in message
 news:c85qmf$234n$1 digitaldaemon.com...


Have you considered creating new files with themes, such as
std.c.windows.winbase?



 Yes, but does anybody use them, or do they just include windows.h?


 Is std.c.windows.windows going to stabilize or continue to grow
 sporadically? Can you mention when you make changes or do we have to
 find out from unexpected compile errors?


I apologize for that. I keep intending to do a complete job of it, and then
fall short.


 If you'd add new definitions in an orderly fashion, I think it might
 cause fewer unexpected conflicts for those programmers who have already
 added those definitions to their own projects.


I need to do better with this.
May 20 2004
prev sibling parent J Anderson <REMOVEanderson badmama.com.au> writes:
Walter wrote:


"J C Calvarese" <jcc7 cox.net> wrote in message
news:c85qmf$234n$1 digitaldaemon.com...
  


Have you considered creating new files with themes, such as
std.c.windows.winbase?
    


Yes, but does anybody use them, or do they just include windows.h?
  


Dig-Dug uses winbase, although it would have used windows if that was 
more complete.

-- 
-Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/
May 19 2004