certi-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [certi-dev] Feature Request - Non console application for RTIA


From: Michael Raab
Subject: Re: [certi-dev] Feature Request - Non console application for RTIA
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 14:45:10 +0100

Your proposal works well, building RTIA results in a linker error.
I think on windows we will need a different program entry point...
We need to add something like this to main.cc for RTIA (below usual main())

#ifdef _WIN32
int APIENTRY
WinMain(struct HINSTANCE__ *hInstance,
          struct HINSTANCE__ *hPrevInstance,
          LPSTR cmd,
         int show)
{
        return main( __argc, __argv );
}
#endif

Michael




Dipl.-Inf. Michael Raab

Fraunhofer-Institut für Fabrikbetrieb und -automatisierung IFF
Virtuell Interaktives Training
Sandtorstr. 22, 39106 Magdeburg, Germany                
Telefon +49 (0) 391/ 40 90 122
Telefax +49 (0) 391/ 40 90 115
address@hidden
http://www.iff.fraunhofer.de oder http://www.vdtc.de



Von:        Eric Noulard <address@hidden>
An:        CERTI development discussions <address@hidden>
Datum:        11/26/2010 02:29 PM
Betreff:        Re: [certi-dev] Feature Request - Non console application for RTIA
Gesendet von:        address@hidden




2010/11/26 Michael Raab <address@hidden>:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm wondering if it is possible to add a build option to the CMAKE
> configuration, that enables/disables the creation of RTIA as a console
> application.

Yes could be done.
I'm not even sure we need an OPTIOn for that.

> This is very annoying under windows as for each and every federate a console
> pops up (I have up to 7 simulation federates + 1 observer federate...),
> don't know if this is a problem in other operating systems....

On the unix systems I knew there is no difference between console and
non-console apps.
beside the fact that GUI needs some graphical display.

Apparently there is similar things on Mac OS X with the "bundle" thing.

> I could do that by hand but if it would be possible to add something to
> CMAKE this would be a more consistent solution.

Yes could you try

putting:
ADD_EXECUTABLE(rtia WIN32 ${rtia_SRCS})

instead of:
ADD_EXECUTABLE(rtia ${rtia_SRCS})

in RTIA/CMakeLists.txt

I think (but I could not test right now) that it should do what you want.

--
Erk
Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » -
http://www.april.org

--
CERTI-Devel mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/certi-devel


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]