🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <19920811.003756.988@almaden.ibm.com> peterf@vnet.ibm.com writes:
>In <1992Aug10.162757.13720@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov> Kaleb Keithley writes:
>>I'm trying to get up to speed on PM programming, so I dragged out my
>>old issues of Micros*ft Journal and started typing in Charles Petzold's
>>Checkers program.  I'm using the non-EMX gcc, if that makes a difference.
>>
>>Question 1: Given the following code fragment...
>>
>>MRESULT EXPENTRY ClientWndProc (
>>    HWND     hwnd,
>>    USHORT   msg,
>>    MPARAM   mp1,
>>    MPARAM   mp2)
>>{
>>    ...
>>    switch (COMMANDMSG (&msg)->cmd) {
>>    ...
>>
>Firstly, under 2.0 the message parameter (msg) to your client window
>procedure should be a ULONG, not a USHORT.
>

Really?  I found a prototype, in one of the headers, for window procs
that confirmed (if you can call it that) that the msg parameter is still 
an USHORT -- at least in whatever beta version of OS/2 that gcc took its 
headers from.  I guess, since gcc was built on a beta release, that I 
shouldn't take it for granted that its headers are correct.

I wonder how we (the set of all OS/2 gcc users) might get a more up to 
date set of header files, short of buying C/Set 2?  (If we had, wanted 
or could afford C Set/2, we wouldn't be using gcc, would we?.  I know I 
personally can't justify the price of C Set/2 for use on my home system!  
Perhaps IBM could take a hint from that other company and offer a $69 C 
Set/2.)  

So, anyone know if a new version of gcc, based on non-beta OS/2 is 
forthcoming from anywhere?

-- 

Kaleb Keithley                          kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov

Not authorized, in any way, shape, or form, to speak for anyone.