[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Gnash-dev] Re: Development for Win32

From: Tonko Juricic
Subject: [Gnash-dev] Re: Development for Win32
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 23:26:34 -0500

On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 5:48 AM, zou lunkai <address@hidden> wrote:

> Right, using gtk on native windows is really not a good choice.  You
> may consider SDL though, it's pretty simple and portable and works
> well on Windows.  The SDL related code in Gnash should compile without
> any difficulty. And SDL is well documented over the internet, and
> there are many examples.
> The only problem with native GUI is that it's not portable at all. But
> I guess you should be very familar with it, so it's might be your good
> choice.  Anyway, take a look at "sdl.cpp" and "sdl_agg_glue.cpp"
> before the final decision:)
> There's binary lib for windows, I can confirm it is stable.

libmedia includes SDL.h so I had to get the library anyway. A minor
problem that I have with it is that Windows library version on that
site is for Visual Studio 2005. Porting it to VS 2008 is usually quick
and painless. Nevertheless, I contacted author Sam Lantinga to see if
any upgrade is already underway or if he maybe can use some help to
create it, but a week has passed and he hasn't responded.

A bigger problem with this library is that I need to modify its
sdl_config_win32.h header because these definitions:

#if defined(__GNUC__) || defined(__DMC__)
#define HAVE_STDINT_H   1
#elif defined(_MSC_VER)
typedef signed __int8           int8_t;
typedef unsigned __int8         uint8_t;
typedef signed __int16          int16_t;
typedef unsigned __int16        uint16_t;
typedef signed __int32          int32_t;
typedef unsigned __int32        uint32_t;
typedef signed __int64          int64_t;
typedef unsigned __int64        uint64_t;

They cause compiler redefinition errors because Gnash already uses
equivalent boost definitions. As you can see it happens only for MS

This is the first time that I need to modify dependent code so is
there some preferred way to go about it?

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]