«

Balog Pal <> wrote:
> Hm, IMO using the 'project dependencies' is a thing that should be banned
> (except for C# mix and similar handicapped stuff). And project reference
> be the only allowed way.

In VS 2005, 'project dependencies' were the only possible way C++ projects.

Specifying dependencies in the solution has also advantages, especially if
multiple libraries share the same interface. You can then compile and link
against different libraries in different solutions.

But in 99% of the cases project 'references' are what you want. But I don't
understand why the referenced projects are not implicitly added to the
solution.

Tobi

On 3/18/2013 3:48 PM, James Kanze wrote:
> On Monday, 18 March 2013 14:10:46 UTC, James Kanze wrote:
>> On Sunday, 17 March 2013 14:14:54 UTC, Balog Pal wrote:
>
>>> Do you say '$(solutionname).Endswith("64")' == 'true' does not work?
>
>> Brilliant.
>
> Except that it doesn't work. This is part of the definition of
> a property:
>
> <MyProp Condition=" '$(SolutionName).Endswith("ABC")' == 'true' ">xxx</MyProp>

That's what I hinted in the other message -- I guess the quotes cause
the problem. But the simple workaround must work fine:

<MyPropTest>'$(SolutionName).Endswith("ABC")</MyPropTest>
....
<MyProp Condition=" '$(MyPropTest)' == 'true' ">xxx</MyProp>

> VS won't load the file&mdash;from the error message (something
> about token ABC not acceptable), I gather that it doesn't like
> the " character in the condition. I've tried replacing the
> "ABC" with &quot;ABC&quot;. In that case, the solution loads
> correctly (this is in a property file included in almost all of
> the projects in the solution), but the condition is never
> met&mdash;MyProp is never xxx.
>
> I'm probably missing something obvious, but I can't find it in
> the Microsoft documentation.

My guess is the grammar is simplistic, so quotes are hosed. But as
there's no limit on properties, should not matter so much.

On Mar 18, 3:48*pm, James Kanze <james.ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Do you say '$(solutionname).Endswith("64")' == 'true' does not work?
>
> Except that it doesn't work.

I tried this sln.props:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<Project ToolsVersion="4.0" xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/
developer/msbuild/2003">
<PropertyGroup Label="UserMacros">
<SLNU>$(SolutionName.ToUpper())</SLNU>
<ST1>$(SolutionName.EndsWith("st"))</ST1>
<ST2>$(SolutionName.EndsWith("ab"))</ST2>
<ST3>$(SolutionName.IndexOf("vs"))</ST3>
<ST4>$(SolutionName.IndexOf("ab"))</ST4>
</PropertyGroup>

<ItemDefinitionGroup>
<ClCompile>
<PreprocessorDefinitions>SLN="$(SLNU)";ST1="$(ST1) ";ST2="$
(ST2)";ST3="$(ST3)";ST4="$(ST4)";%(PreprocessorDef initions)</
PreprocessorDefinitions>
<PreprocessorDefinitions Condition="'$
(ST1)'=='True'">COND1="First";%(PreprocessorDefini tions)</
PreprocessorDefinitions>
<PreprocessorDefinitions Condition="'$(ST1)'!
='True'">COND1="Not First";%(PreprocessorDefinitions)</
PreprocessorDefinitions>
<PreprocessorDefinitions Condition="'$(ST3)'!='-1'">COND2="vs
found";%(PreprocessorDefinitions)</PreprocessorDefinitions>
<PreprocessorDefinitions Condition="'$(ST3)'=='-1'">COND2="vs
not found";%(PreprocessorDefinitions)</PreprocessorDefinitions>
</ClCompile>
</ItemDefinitionGroup>

</Project>

included in a project, in pvst.sln and abab.sln -- works fine and
changes the options as expected

On Friday, March 8, 2013 2:01:51 AM UTC-6, Ian Collins wrote:
>
> In my opinion Solaris (and the numerous OpenSolaris derivatives) have
>
> better developer tools than Linux, especially for analysing applications
>
> (and the OS) in a production0n environment.
>
>

I asked about this subject on a Linux newsgroup
here in Minnesota. Here's the reply from Florin Lucha.

Dtrace is a better system performance evaluation tool, and that's
about the only thing that *Solaris has 'better' than Linux at this
point. The Sun^WOracle Studio C/C++ compilers runs just fine under
Linux as well, if you need second set of diagnostics (it usually helps
to keep code clean and portable).

I used to run it in a KVM virtual machine, just for testing purposes.
I tried to run it on bare metal, but the lack of hardware support
reminds me of Linux circa '97. Case in point, I have motherboard
(EVGA with dual onboard Gigabit 3COM/Marvell controllers) that Linux
runs smoothly on. Solaris works as well, and even has driver for the
family of NICs that include my particular model, but my NICs PCI ids
are blacklisted due to some bug that was sitting in a bugzilla for two
years. It did not reach critical mass with enthusiasts so it does
have a bleak future for hobbyists.

OpenSolaris is slowly becoming like MacOS - it only runs on certain
hardware configurations. The 'uber' UNIX hackers at Sun wanted to
keep all the goodness for themselves... now, they can have it, since
nobody else can run it, should they want to. The *BSDs have much
better hardware support.

-------------------------------------------------

wrote:
> On Friday, March 8, 2013 2:01:51 AM UTC-6, Ian Collins wrote:
>>
>> In my opinion Solaris (and the numerous OpenSolaris derivatives) have
>>
>> better developer tools than Linux, especially for analysing applications
>>
>> (and the OS) in a production0n environment.
>>
>>
>
> I asked about this subject on a Linux newsgroup
> here in Minnesota. Here's the reply from Florin Lucha.
>
> Dtrace is a better system performance evaluation tool, and that's
> about the only thing that *Solaris has 'better' than Linux at this
> point. The Sun^WOracle Studio C/C++ compilers runs just fine under
> Linux as well, if you need second set of diagnostics (it usually helps
> to keep code clean and portable).

DTrace can make a big difference and is one of the main reasons we (my
clients and I) use Solaris bases OSs. Being able to probe a running
application without having to restart or mess about with logging levels
is a huge win. It also helps keep the source free of messy logging
code. An excellent real world example is PostgeSQL:

https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/DTrace

> OpenSolaris is slowly becoming like MacOS - it only runs on certain
> hardware configurations. The 'uber' UNIX hackers at Sun wanted to
> keep all the goodness for themselves... now, they can have it, since
> nobody else can run it, should they want to. The *BSDs have much
> better hardware support.

It runs on just about anything modern and I always fit a decent NIC if
the motherboard has a grotty one...

--
Ian Collins