Re: [Bug-gnubg] Compile latest version under Windows

[Holger]

At 16:02 27.11.2002 +0000, Joern Thyssen wrote:
>On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 04:05:07PM +0100, Holger wrote
>> At 23:31 26.11.02 +0100, Jim Segrave wrote:
>> >I'm more than willing to look at the errors - I don't know how much I
>> >can help with the Windows environment errors, but if you send the
>> >output of make > make.out 2>&1 (or however you get stdout and stderr
>> >to a file in that system, I am more than willing to try to identify
>> >the problems). I may be able to do more under Solaris, as we do run it
>> >on a few machines, but I can't install gtk on production
>> >machines. Once again, if there are portability issues, I am happy to
>> >try to help resolve them.
>> 
>> A new day, another try. I got further than yesterday, but still not until
>> the end.
>> 
>> I'll attach both my Makefile and the output of make.
>
>You should add gtkrace.c and bearoff.c to SOURCE, and add gtkrace.o and
>bearoff.o to OBJS.

Yeah, it seems that I got it working (onechequer.c/.o was missing, too).
Though, there are still circular dependencies with my Makefile. Can they be
avoided?

During the last try br1.c had about the size like Jim mentioned:
-rwxrwxrwx    1 Administ Kein      9630656 Nov 27 16:51 br1.c
Before, when there were some files missing in SOURCE and OBJS it was only
about 16k small. I hope to have it right now.

Speaking of br1.c, why does it have to be compiled into the executable?
GNUbg.exe is now 2.489.383 bytes big (on my system), so more than double
than before.
I suppose the database doesn't change? As a user I don't want to download
this again and again when I get a new version. At least not if the most
part doesn't change.

Regards,

        Holger

P.S. New version of my Makefile attached.

Makefile.gz
Description: Binary data