www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - The future of the Windows API header translation project

reply Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:
I've just been doing a bit more work on the Windows API headers when I had a
thought or two.

Windows Vista is now here.  Vista-new API features will need to be included
sooner or later.  But can we really do anything but wait for MinGW to be
updated to Vista?

I've just updated the versioning system to accommodate Vista.  But maybe we
should wait at least till we finally get up-to-date .lib files before we start
adding stuff in this respect.


If I'm not mistaken, then Win64 is here as well.  I'm not sure how much of the
code we'll need to change to support Win64.  One thing that's for sure is that
we'll have to stop calling the package win32 at some point.  And I guess we'll
also have to adjust some of the .lib names and string constant values.  But I
don't know whether it's a simple matter of replacing all occurrences of "32"
with "64" or something more complicated.

(Do we have a D compiler for Win64 yet?  DMD clearly hasn't got that far, but
how's GDC doing here?)


Comments?

Stewart.
Mar 16 2007
parent reply Dan <murpsoft hotmail.com> writes:
Stewart Gordon Wrote:


 I've just been doing a bit more work on the Windows API headers when I had a
thought or two.


Thanks, m8.  I use them.


 
 Windows Vista is now here.  Vista-new API features will need to be included
sooner or later.  But can we really do anything but wait for MinGW to be
updated to Vista?


Vista is evil.  That said, we'll still need headers for it.  Maybe I'm not
understanding the details when I ask why that requires anything but the Vista C
header files?


 If I'm not mistaken, then Win64 is here as well.  I'm not sure how much of the
code we'll need to change to support Win64.  One thing that's for sure is that
we'll have to stop calling the package win32 at some point.  And I guess we'll
also have to adjust some of the .lib names and string constant values.  But I
don't know whether it's a simple matter of replacing all occurrences of "32"
with "64" or something more complicated.


If you want a hand, I'd be willing to help.  Not that I'm an amazing helper or
anything, but I ought to hopefully be able to port header files.  One would
hope.


 (Do we have a D compiler for Win64 yet?  DMD clearly hasn't got that far, but
how's GDC doing here?)


Good question.  I kind of hope we manage to get this figured out rather
quickly.  Otherwise there'll be 500,000 unfortunate people with Vista that can
add D to the massive list of things they can't use.
Mar 16 2007
parent Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:
Dan wrote:

 Stewart Gordon Wrote:
 

 Windows Vista is now here.  Vista-new API features will need to be included
 sooner or later.  But can we really do anything but wait for MinGW 




to be

 updated to Vista?


 
 Vista is evil.  That said, we'll still need headers for it.  Maybe I'm not
 understanding the details when I ask why that requires anything but the
 Vista C header files?


The Microsoft headers are copyrighted.  And while I don't understand why 
MS would possibly care that their headers were ported to a new 
programming language (since doing so may actually increase the use of 
their platform/library/whatever, and the MS libraries themselves must 
still be available for the ported headers to function), it's safest to 
honor the copyright anyway.  The easiest way to do this is to port 
someone else's version of these headers instead, and the MinGW ones have 
a much less restrictive copyright associated with them.


Sean
Mar 16 2007