Walter,

the beta releases are good to use with the IDDE?

/gf

    I have tested with some of them, and no problems in the integration with
the IDDE.

"gf" <mz_y2k@yahoo..com> escribió en el mensaje news:Xns933D7F99E940Emzy2kyahoocom@63.105.9.61...
> Walter,
>
> the beta releases are good to use with the IDDE?
>
> /gf

In article <b4pv5o$hj9$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Javier Gutiérrez says...
>
>    I have tested with some of them, and no problems in the integration with
>the IDDE.

Since IDDE is using a dll version of compiler that is frozen at the current release level, you need to use the exe version of the compiler for beta versions. After you install the beta compiler, the easiest way to do this is to open a console window, change to the project directory and do:

smake -f [projectname].mak

or

smake -all -f [projectname].mak

The former compiles and links for changed files, and the latter does a rebuild.

Richard

Richard Grant <fractal@clark.net> wrote in news:b4qon3$16dk$1@digitaldaemon.com:

> In article <b4pv5o$hj9$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Javier Gutiérrez says...
>>
>>    I have tested with some of them, and no problems in the
>>    integration with
>>the IDDE.
> 
> Since IDDE is using a dll version of compiler that is frozen at the current release level, you need to use the exe version of the compiler for beta versions. After you install the beta compiler, the easiest way to do this is to open a console window, change to the project directory and do:
> 
> smake -f [projectname].mak
> 
> or
> 
> smake -all -f [projectname].mak
> 
> The former compiles and links for changed files, and the latter does a rebuild.
> 
> Richard


Why doesn't Walter provide a beta dll version of the compiler? Sometimes the corrections justify running a beta build.


/gf

On Sat, 15 Mar 2003 10:08:37 +0000 (UTC), gf wrote:
> Why doesn't Walter provide a beta dll version of the compiler? Sometimes the corrections justify running a beta build.

Wouldn't it be even better to only have a dll version of the compiler which is used by the IDDE and by the console frontend (dmc.exe/sc.exe)?


bye, Christof

-- 
http://cmeerw.org                                 JID: cmeerw@jabber.at mailto cmeerw at web.de

...and what have you contributed to the Net?

"Christof Meerwald" <cmeerw@web.de> wrote in message news:b5abt4$30r9$2@digitaldaemon.com...
> On Sat, 15 Mar 2003 10:08:37 +0000 (UTC), gf wrote:
> > Why doesn't Walter provide a beta dll version of the compiler? Sometimes the corrections justify running a beta build.
>
> Wouldn't it be even better to only have a dll version of the compiler
which
> is used by the IDDE and by the console frontend (dmc.exe/sc.exe)?

Yes, it would be, but the dll interface to the IDDE grew so complicated it wasn't worthwhile.

In article <b5ad9v$1dd$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
>
>
>"Christof Meerwald" <cmeerw@web.de> wrote in message news:b5abt4$30r9$2@digitaldaemon.com...
>> On Sat, 15 Mar 2003 10:08:37 +0000 (UTC), gf wrote:
>> > Why doesn't Walter provide a beta dll version of the compiler? Sometimes the corrections justify running a beta build.
>>
>> Wouldn't it be even better to only have a dll version of the compiler
>which
>> is used by the IDDE and by the console frontend (dmc.exe/sc.exe)?

Having a release and a beta works better for me, since I have developments and deployments to maintain. A dll only version would mean I would need a c:\dm-beta, or do something in the make file. As it is, I don't install the dll distributed in the beta.

Richard

Christof Meerwald <cmeerw@web.de> wrote in news:b5abt4$30r9$2@digitaldaemon.com:

> On Sat, 15 Mar 2003 10:08:37 +0000 (UTC), gf wrote:
>> Why doesn't Walter provide a beta dll version of the compiler? Sometimes the corrections justify running a beta build.
> 
> Wouldn't it be even better to only have a dll version of the compiler which is used by the IDDE and by the console frontend (dmc.exe/sc.exe)?
> 
> 
> bye, Christof

Hell, yes! Excelent idea!

/gf