On 3/11/07, Jeff Cohen <jeffc at jolt-lang.org> wrote:> No, the problem with StoreSDNode was that an argument as being called Value, > which hid the class Value later on in the argument list. This also broke > 2003 and was fixed a while ago.Ok, I didn't know that. We've been using the 1.9 tarball version, as I said.> _WIN32_WINNT is not supposed to be predefined, so that warning shouldn't be > occurring. I have never seen it myself, and a predefined value could be > inappropriate.Many win32 projects define this globally when they need some specific target version of the platform SDK. Maybe the correct way would be to do a less-than check and bail out instead.> Most of the other changes seem to be about inserting casts, and I'd like to > know what errors they are fixing. The casts are not needed with GCC or VS > 2003.I didn't add those but I'm fairly sure they only fixed warnings about c-style casts. So in effect my patch offered zero value for the list, please disregard it :-) // A
Andreas Fredriksson wrote:> On 3/11/07, Jeff Cohen <jeffc at jolt-lang.org> wrote: >> No, the problem with StoreSDNode was that an argument as being called >> Value, >> which hid the class Value later on in the argument list. This also >> broke >> 2003 and was fixed a while ago. > > Ok, I didn't know that. We've been using the 1.9 tarball version, as I > said.Just to make clear, there are no problems building 1.9 with VS 2003, nor are there any problems as I write this.> >> _WIN32_WINNT is not supposed to be predefined, so that warning >> shouldn't be >> occurring. I have never seen it myself, and a predefined value could be >> inappropriate. > > Many win32 projects define this globally when they need some specific > target version of the platform SDK. Maybe the correct way would be to > do a less-than check and bail out instead.That's what we do. We define it in llvm/lib/System/Win32/Win32.h, which in included by every file that uses the Win32 API. There is no reason for you to redefine it. Changing it to an earlier version will cause build failures, changing it to a later version will have no effect, other than to permit the use of more recent Win32 APIs that will prevent LLVM from running on versions as old as Windows 2000.> >> Most of the other changes seem to be about inserting casts, and I'd >> like to >> know what errors they are fixing. The casts are not needed with GCC >> or VS >> 2003. > > I didn't add those but I'm fairly sure they only fixed warnings about > c-style casts.I don't understand. How does introducing c-style casts were none existed silence warnings about c-style casts?> > So in effect my patch offered zero value for the list, please > disregard it :-)OK :)> > // A > > >
On 3/12/07, Jeff Cohen <jeffc at jolt-lang.org> wrote:> Just to make clear, there are no problems building 1.9 with VS 2003, nor > are there any problems as I write this.I'm fairly sure we grabbed the 1.9 tarball off the website, but I could be wrong.> That's what we do. We define it in llvm/lib/System/Win32/Win32.h, which > in included by every file that uses the Win32 API. There is no reason > for you to redefine it. Changing it to an earlier version will cause > build failures, changing it to a later version will have no effect, > other than to permit the use of more recent Win32 APIs that will prevent > LLVM from running on versions as old as Windows 2000.Yes; my point was merely that in some build environments it's convenient to just define it to , say, Windows XP all across the solution with a property sheet (as we had done). // A