Maybe it would be a good idea to just include sdkddkver.h and then analyze
_WIN32_WINNT value so that Boost automatically uses the right WinAPI. If the
user does not define this macro then we use whatever the default is in the
current SDK.
I don't think so. The default _WIN32_WINNT=0x0601 in the windows sdk is
very high but it does not break compatibility with WinXP in the most of
24.10.2013 1:06, Andrey Semashev пишет:
the cases. OTOH, if we use the _WIN32_WINNT, our library will be
incompatible with WinXP by default.
I propose the following approach:
condvar_vista.cpp:
==============================
#define _WIN32_WINNT 0x0600
#include
#include
#ifdef _WIN32_WINNT_VISTA
condvar_vista::condvar_vista()
{
//Vista+ implementation
};
#endif //_WIN32_WINNT_VISTA
==============================
condvar_win2k.cpp:
==============================
#define _WIN32_WINNT 0x0500
#include
#include
condvar_win2k::condvar_win2k()
{
//Win2k implementation
};
==============================
condvar.hpp:
==============================
#if !defined( _WIN32_WINNT )
# pragma message( "_WIN32_WINNT is not defined" )
//ToDo: define USE_VISTA by default after 08 Apr 2014
#else if _WIN32_WINNT >= 0x0600 //Vista+
# define USE_VISTA
#endif
#include
#ifdef _WIN32_WINNT_VISTA
class condvar_vista{...};
#endif //_WIN32_WINNT_VISTA
class condvar_w2k{...};
#ifdef USE_VISTA
typedef condvar_vista condvar;
#else
typedef condvar_w2k condvar;
#endif
==============================
With this approach, our library will contain both implementations of the
condvar class (providing the SDK is not too old). To choose between
them, developers will have to define _WIN32_WINNT for their applications
but will not have to recompile our library.
What do you think about this idea?
--
Best regards,
Sergey Cheban
