similar to: [PATCH] Add Visual Studio 2008 Prject files

I pulled the test directory from 2003, but everything else from 2005. The 2005 files have more ?cross-compiling? targets than the 2003 ones. I fixed the various missing 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

On 11/28/07, Jean-Marc Valin <jean-marc.valin@usherbrooke.ca> wrote: > I think the amount of Windows crap is getting a bit ridiculous. Does > anyone know of a solution to keep things manageable? I mean, the same > autotools files manage the build for Linux PCs, Blackfins and MacOS (and > others). Yet, we need one set of files for each MS compiler version > (good thing they

Ok! If there are indeed cross-compiling targets defined, then vs2005 projects probably should be maintained. In any case, this is all up to Jean-Marc, since he's the one that actually has authority to change it :) Jean-Marc -- what's your opinion? On 11/28/07, Aron Rosenberg <arosenberg@sightspeed.com> wrote: > > I pulled the test directory from 2003, but everything else

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

Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: speex_vs2008_part2.diff Type: application/octet-stream Size: 11265 bytes Desc: speex_vs2008_part2.diff Url : http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/speex-dev/attachments/20071128/136ce70d/speex_vs2008_part2-0001.obj

On 12/3/07, Stefan Reuther <streu@gmx.de> wrote: > John Miles wrote: > > What's wrong with a plain old .bat file, or even an NMAKE .mak file? > > Ship two files, debug.bat and release.bat, and call it good. > > > > It is best to leave project-file creation up to individual users, > > in my opinion. > > I second that. When I played around with Speex

Jean-Marc Valin wrote: ... > I think the amount of Windows crap is getting a bit ridiculous. Does > anyone know of a solution to keep things manageable? I mean, the same > autotools files manage the build for Linux PCs, Blackfins and MacOS (and > others). Yet, we need one set of files for each MS compiler version > (good thing they don't practice "release early, release

What's wrong with a plain old .bat file, or even an NMAKE .mak file? Ship two files, debug.bat and release.bat, and call it good. It is best to leave project-file creation up to individual users, in my opinion. MS changes their IDEs and project-file formats more often than most people change their underwear. The odds that any given open-source project will actually compile without any

We just came across an occasional crash with the Win32 Assembly patch I sent in earlier, so hold off on applying it until we send an updated version. Aron Rosenberg SightSpeed http://www.sightspeed.com <p>--- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/ To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to

Here is code to add to configure.in to do what you want. It preserves CFLAGS and uses that var to hold the sse enable flags. You can subset this under the exisiting AC_ARG for sse or just make it do it all the time. If you notice the i?86, that means any x86 platform target will have it enabled. You can change that i686, but keep in mind that some distros compile/target for i386 on the glibc

Keith Kyzivat a ?crit : > Something to look into perhaps is Trolltech's 'qmake' tool. > It fills the role of something like autotools or now defunct imake. I think TrollTech deserves a prize for their accomplishment in making qmake even worse than autotools (I'm using it for something else and wish I wasn't -- Qt itself is fine though). I've heard good things about

Something to look into perhaps is Trolltech's 'qmake' tool. It fills the role of something like autotools or now defunct imake. As far as I understand, you can indeed use it for projects that don't do anything with the Qt libraries. Now, it may not have the support for multiple targets that it sounds like are needed for speex, and I know it doesn't have as comprehensive of

In speex_alloc.h The following code #ifdef USE_ALLOCA #include <alloca.h> #endif should be: #ifdef USE_ALLOCA #ifdef WIN32 #include <malloc.h> #else #include <alloca.h> #endif #endif for visual studio at least. Not sure about mingw Aron Rosenberg www.sightspeed.com

Hello to all, I am trying to build speex for the Windows Mobile platform. However I am not able to build it even on Windows x86 because a source file (medfilter.c) while declared in the project settings is missing. So linker cannot find medfilter.obj and I am not able to build it. Please could anyone tell me if this is an error that I should fix manually (for example ignore the file and fix

On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 12:07 AM, Jean-Marc Valin < jean-marc.valin at usherbrooke.ca> wrote: > Tom Grandgent a ?crit : > > If you remove the project files, I doubt it's going to make things easier > > for anyone. You'll probably just increase the number of questions as > > people struggle to compile using less common and less user-friendly > > methods,

Hello! I couldn't find any recent discussion of this, so thought I'd post, and I'm not clear who maintains the Win32 build environment or I'd have contacted them directly. I've finally gotten around to turning voice back on in my project, and I'm having issues with obtaining a stable build in VS2005. I've checked out SVN trunk of obb (as libogg) and speex, built

Greetings, <p>my apologies for putting this trash in the mailing list but the topic about SSE run-time option interested me pretty much. Looks like some people is really experienced on the topic. I would really appreciate if somebody could point me to good resources about SSE and Altivec (not necessarly on the net, I'm ready to invest some money if necessary). I already have intel

Hi, Is is possible to have makefiles, batchfiles, whatever that just calls the command-line compilers and doesn't require this huge amount of per-compiler-version crap? Otherwise, I'm seriously considering removing all those project files from the build since time has proven there's just no way to get them up-to-date. Jean-Marc Alexander Chemeris a ?crit : > Hello, > > On

If you remove the project files, I doubt it's going to make things easier for anyone. You'll probably just increase the number of questions as people struggle to compile using less common and less user-friendly methods, and someone is going to have to maintain that anyway. VS users want VS project files. Plenty of open-source projects provide them. It's not that hard.

> > OK, so here's a first start. I've translated to intrinsics the asm I > > sent 1-2 days ago. The result is about 5% slower than the pure asm > > approach, so it's not too bad (SSE asm is 2x faster than x87). Note that > > unlike the previous version which had a kludge to work with order 8 > > (required for wideband), this version only works with order