search for: macro'ed

...a few wrinkles I intend to PR and merge it into the main NUT codebase soon, lest the effort bit-rot again. There are nearly no remaining "functional" changes to lines of existing "POSIX" NUT codebase, with platform specifics fenced by ifdef. (There is quite a bit of noise with macro'ed data types that resolve same as they did for POSIX builds). So far it is not prime-time ready to package: some functionality remains ifdef-ed away, though it might have been in 2.6.5 based releases too, and I did not even investigate MSI generation. Also there were good ideas how to archite...

...a few wrinkles I intend to PR and merge it into the main NUT codebase soon, lest the effort bit-rot again. There are nearly no remaining "functional" changes to lines of existing "POSIX" NUT codebase, with platform specifics fenced by ifdef. (There is quite a bit of noise with macro'ed data types that resolve same as they did for POSIX builds). So far it is not prime-time ready to package: some functionality remains ifdef-ed away, though it might have been in 2.6.5 based releases too, and I did not even investigate MSI generation. Also there were good ideas how to archite...

...ll without hardcoding it > * localtime_r, gmtime_r use ugly fallbacks where unavoidable > * usb close_dev() crashes > * not all dependencies were tried, probably more build warnings are > lurking to clean up > * installer not investigated > * code mostly looks at "WIN32" macro as a big switch; there should be more > specific configure-script tests for different versions, toolkits, build > envs, IDEs... that are possible. Supported or not, WIN XP may still be a > big thing... > * clean up what `make install` does (e.g. no systemd/SMF on win) > * automate co...

...ll without hardcoding it > * localtime_r, gmtime_r use ugly fallbacks where unavoidable > * usb close_dev() crashes > * not all dependencies were tried, probably more build warnings are > lurking to clean up > * installer not investigated > * code mostly looks at "WIN32" macro as a big switch; there should be more > specific configure-script tests for different versions, toolkits, build > envs, IDEs... that are possible. Supported or not, WIN XP may still be a > big thing... > * clean up what `make install` does (e.g. no systemd/SMF on win) > * automate co...

...to PR and merge it into the main NUT > codebase soon, lest the effort bit-rot again. > > There are nearly no remaining "functional" changes to lines of existing > "POSIX" NUT codebase, with platform specifics fenced by ifdef. (There is > quite a bit of noise with macro'ed data types that resolve same as they did > for POSIX builds). > > So far it is not prime-time ready to package: some functionality remains > ifdef-ed away, though it might have been in 2.6.5 based releases too, and I > did not even investigate MSI generation. Also there were g...

...to PR and merge it into the main NUT > codebase soon, lest the effort bit-rot again. > > There are nearly no remaining "functional" changes to lines of existing > "POSIX" NUT codebase, with platform specifics fenced by ifdef. (There is > quite a bit of noise with macro'ed data types that resolve same as they did > for POSIX builds). > > So far it is not prime-time ready to package: some functionality remains > ifdef-ed away, though it might have been in 2.6.5 based releases too, and I > did not even investigate MSI generation. Also there were g...