From: Andrey Melnikov (melnikov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-09 14:18:35
Alexey Pakhunov wrote:
> Andrey Melnikov wrote:
>>It is fatal if we add both builtin and external PSDK to the search
>>paths. But if we add only one SDK it will work.
> MS PSDK is intended to be used in the configuration when both VS and
> PSDK path are used and order of directories makes a difference. I
> believe it has been tested in this exactly configuration. If we
> introduce a new configuration (no directories overlapping) we will have
> to prove that this configuration will work.
:( This makes things much harder.
> So I compared contents of "...\Microsoft Visual Studio
> 8\VC\PlatformSDK\Include" and "...\Platform SDK\Include". There are 394
> files that do not present in both folders. Both folders contains such
> files. I would say this means that we need both VS & PSDK include path
> to be present.
We do need both StdLib and PSDK include paths. Are there any important
user visible headers in this difference? A part of the difference may be
due to changed internals of the PSDK due to addition of the new 64-bit
platform, and other part may be because 2003SP1 SDK has Stdlib and if I
remember it correctly, older ATL and MFC inside. I wonder if they are
separated or not.
Anyways, your point regarding PSDK tested in these specific
configuration makes sense.
Boost-Build list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk