-_-
-
Chojun
- Regular

- Posts: 518
- Joined: 25 Nov 2006, 17:49
Re: -_-
Okay, enough of the smileys
I was curious to know what kind of effort would be required to convert the 1.10 C code to compile in C++ without using permissive compiler settings. The results are illustrated above.
Except for the ~30,000 error one - I was just messing with you guys there. I simply commented out one of the widely-used type defines
The conversion did uncover a large number of problems with the original source (all at varying levels of heinous-ness), especially in the Net code.
I was curious to know what kind of effort would be required to convert the 1.10 C code to compile in C++ without using permissive compiler settings. The results are illustrated above.
Except for the ~30,000 error one - I was just messing with you guys there. I simply commented out one of the widely-used type defines
The conversion did uncover a large number of problems with the original source (all at varying levels of heinous-ness), especially in the Net code.
-
Chojun
- Regular

- Posts: 518
- Joined: 25 Nov 2006, 17:49
Re: -_-
No, sorry, I didn't mean to mislead anyone. I didn't emphasize enough that what I did was on the original 1.10 source - merely work done out of curiosity. It is absolutely possible to convert to C++.lav_coyote25 wrote:so what your saying is that converting to C++ is a no go???
I was ultimately successful to get the project to compile as C++, but I had to fix about 1,800 errors.
The good news is that the 2.3.9 source is compiling as C++ as far as I can tell, but like I've said before, I'm not familiar at all with the source for this project.
I lol'd and threw up a little in my mouthGoth Zagog-Thou wrote:I thought that we were using Objective-C ?




