search for: vs2003

The new property manager doesn't exist in VS2003 either. Don't know where to add it. Chris Lattner wrote: > On Fri, 27 Jan 2006, Jeff Cohen wrote: > >> _CRT_SECURE_NO_DEPRECATE is new for VS2005. Nothing I can do with it >> in VS2003. > > > It shouldn't hurt to define it though, even if VC2003 where it do...

...ve lib/CodeGen/ELF - which was a copy of the 'libelf' GNU >> library which got partially deleted. > > I just removed it from the CVS repo. > >> 2) Is there any way make the "Win32" Visual Studio 2003 a separate source >> repository, so we do not have the VS2003 code being distributed on every >> *nix platform. AND could we also have a Visual Studio 2005 release in >> parallel to the VS2003 again as a separate repository. > > What is the motivation for this? The Win32 directory doesn't have VS2003 > source code AFAIK, No just the...

_CRT_SECURE_NO_DEPRECATE is new for VS2005. Nothing I can do with it in VS2003. Morten Ofstad wrote: > Jeff Cohen wrote: > >> The project files need frequent updating. I cannot maintain VS2005 >> project files, so while they could be distributed with LLVM, they >> will become broken fast. Also, VS2003 and VS2005 project and >> solution fil...

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006, Jeff Cohen wrote: > The new property manager doesn't exist in VS2003 either. Don't know where to > add it. Isn't there a place to add -D_CRT_SECURE_NO_DEPRECATE for the preprocessor? Isn't this all we are talking about, or am I missing something? -Chris >> On Fri, 27 Jan 2006, Jeff Cohen wrote: >> >>> _CRT_SECURE_NO_DEPRE...

Hi, Two things regarding the new subversion repository :- 1) Can you remove lib/CodeGen/ELF - which was a copy of the 'libelf' GNU library which got partially deleted. 2) Is there any way make the "Win32" Visual Studio 2003 a separate source repository, so we do not have the VS2003 code being distributed on every *nix platform. AND could we also have a Visual Studio 2005 release in parallel to the VS2003 again as a separate repository. I dont know whether you can have merged source trees but different repositories with subversion. Aaron

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006, Jeff Cohen wrote: > _CRT_SECURE_NO_DEPRECATE is new for VS2005. Nothing I can do with it in > VS2003. It shouldn't hurt to define it though, even if VC2003 where it does nothing. Right? -Chris > Morten Ofstad wrote: > >> Jeff Cohen wrote: >> >>> The project files need frequent updating. I cannot maintain VS2005 >>> project files, so while they could...

I don't know. If that's all it was, why is there a special new property manager to set it? Morten will need to explain what to do in VS2003 to make VS2005 happy. Chris Lattner wrote: > On Fri, 27 Jan 2006, Jeff Cohen wrote: > >> The new property manager doesn't exist in VS2003 either. Don't know >> where to add it. > > > Isn't there a place to add -D_CRT_SECURE_NO_DEPRECATE for the > prep...

Jeff Cohen wrote: > The project files need frequent updating. I cannot maintain VS2005 > project files, so while they could be distributed with LLVM, they will > become broken fast. Also, VS2003 and VS2005 project and solution files > cannot coexist in the same directories, further complicating matters. The VS2003 project files convert without problems -- you might want to add in a property sheet (using the new property manager) that defines _CRT_SECURE_NO_DEPRECATE, though. Actually...

...y :- > 1) Can you remove lib/CodeGen/ELF - which was a copy of the 'libelf' GNU > library which got partially deleted. I just removed it from the CVS repo. > 2) Is there any way make the "Win32" Visual Studio 2003 a separate source > repository, so we do not have the VS2003 code being distributed on every > *nix platform. AND could we also have a Visual Studio 2005 release in > parallel to the VS2003 again as a separate repository. What is the motivation for this? The Win32 directory doesn't have VS2003 source code AFAIK, -Chris -- http://nondot.org/sa...

On Sat, 3 Mar 2007, Aaron Gray wrote: >> What is the motivation for this? The Win32 directory doesn't have VS2003 >> source code AFAIK, > > No just the VS2003 project and solution files and a about 30 sub directories > which are not required on *nix platforms. So it would be good to have the > "win32" files in a separate repository if possible. I thought this would be > a convien...

The project files need frequent updating. I cannot maintain VS2005 project files, so while they could be distributed with LLVM, they will become broken fast. Also, VS2003 and VS2005 project and solution files cannot coexist in the same directories, further complicating matters. Aaron Gray wrote: > Hi Morten, > > If you can make the VS2005 project files availiable on the net then I > can test them as I have VS2005 now, so then with Chris'es okay t...

...g files in the new 2008 projects (misc.c and one other other are gone now). The only thing you could do which would make them more compact would be to get rid of the subdirectories under each vs-version. There is no real need for it and it just makes things a little confusing. Win32 ------ vs2003 -----All .sln, .vcproj | |------vs2005 -----All .sln, .vcproj | |------vs2008 -----All .sln,.bcproj You could also remove the old Visual Studio 6 files, .dsw, .dsp since that compiler is no longer supported by MS. -Aron From: kam...

Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: speex_vs2008.diff Type: application/octet-stream Size: 165590 bytes Desc: speex_vs2008.diff Url : http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/speex-dev/attachments/20071127/08917736/speex_vs2008-0001.obj

...So, I have several proposals for Speex usage simplififcation: 1) switch from single-threaded runtime to multi-threaded one. 2) provide static and dynamic libraries in prebuilt Windows version 3) may be provide debug and release libraries (linked with debug and release runtime libraries) 4) separate VS2003 development package from VS2005 one (and VS6 may be). VS2003 and VS2005 use different runtime libraries and I'm not sure that Speex, linked with VS2005 runtime, will work correctly in VS2003 project. 5) move dll's to 'bin' directory, lib's to lib directory and includes to 'i...

...ne other > other are gone now). > > > > The only thing you could do which would make them more compact would be to > get rid of the subdirectories under each vs-version. There is no real need > for it and it just makes things a little confusing. > > > > Win32 ------ vs2003 -----All .sln, .vcproj > > | > > |------vs2005 -----All .sln, .vcproj > > | > > |------vs2008 -----All .sln,.bcproj > > > > > > You could also remove the old Visual Studio 6 files, .dsw, .dsp since that > c...

> On Sat, 3 Mar 2007, Aaron Gray wrote: >>> What is the motivation for this? The Win32 directory doesn't have >>> VS2003 >>> source code AFAIK, >> >> No just the VS2003 project and solution files and a about 30 sub >> directories >> which are not required on *nix platforms. So it would be good to have the >> "win32" files in a separate repository if possible. I though...

The VS2005 project files are known to not be up-to-date, so I can understand that you'd need to fix some things. Can you verify with an import of the VS2003 project files, that there is no need for any fixes, and just works after importing? Managing multiple project files should be minimized if at all possible. If a straight import of vs2003 project files can be done without any changes post-import, then I'd recommend that vs2008 project files ar...

...les and manually maintained the Visual Studio project / solution files, which has always been a pain. Recently we've made a successful partial migration to a CMake driven environment. This lets us manage one set of quasi-make text files, and CMake does a surprisingly nice job of generating VS2003 and VS2005 project / solution files along with our Linux and other target make files. We've had some success adding other related automations like doxygen configs that get passed the per-library source file lists. CMake even lets us generate source / header folders within the Visual Stud...

...05 SP1 will not work because they do not support the C++ standard well enough. Is it just some features of LLVM that require better C++ support and so building the whole suite requires Visual Studio 2005 SP1 or later? Or is it the case that the core functionality of LLVM requires C++ support that VS2003 does not provide and so Visual Studio 2003 can never be used to build LLVM? Thank you so much for your help, Philip -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20110517/82d6cb5d/attachment.html>

Hi, I am compiling the OpenSpeak which combines PA and Speex. However, it said the speex.lib , linker mismatch error between C2.Dll and Link.exe so I want to use VS2003 to compile again. anyone can tell me which file should I get the lib done? I have download the speex 1.2 beta, however, it seems I cannot this file be compiled. Thanks