cuneiform team mailing list archive

[Alex Samorukov <samm@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jussi Pakkanen wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 8:18 PM, Alex Samorukov <samm@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>   
> > I want to ask about including debug version of the windummy.c to the
> > sources. But i`m not sure how to better solve this.
> > I`m using patched version, like
> > to see non implemented function calls.  I think that its better to route all
> > such calls to print_debug() functions, which will print all to stderr in
> > case of DEBUG build, and to null in case of production. What do you think
> > about this?
> >     
>
> I have been meaning to fix windummy.c for a while now. Specifically by
> removing the functions one by one and then fixing the build errors as
> they happen. Or in some cases renaming the working dummy functions so
> they don't clash with Windows function names.
>
> Why do you want to print this information? As Cuneiform works on
> unixes, getting rid of windummy.c functions should only be necessary
> when porting back to Windows. Are there more issues like the wsprintf
> thing?
>   
I think that its better to clean up code from such calls. Also, i`m sure 
that some functions are broken. E.g. they are using windows fonts to 
create font examples (?)  to compare width of the resulted strings. 
Another example was CreateMetaFile, which was reason of failed image 
embedding.
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~cuneiform
> Post to     : cuneiform@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~cuneiform
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
>