Thanks for the work! I've put a link in the 3rd party wiki
page<http://code.google.com/p/protobuf/wiki/ThirdPartyAddOns>
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 11:32 PM, Scott Saad <saa
...@gmail.com> wrote:
> A quick status update on this effort:
> - I forked the source at GitHub under the protobuf-cppbuilder<https://github.com/saadware/protobuf-cppbuilder>project.
> - The biggest overarching changes revolved around namespaces. These
> changes were minimal but touched many files.
> - Main cause of this change was a "using namespace std;" statement
> in common.h. I removed this but then had to fully qualify std types when
> there were used (i.e. string became std::string).
> - C++Builder sometimes had problems resolving namespaces. For
> example if we were in google::protobuf and something was referenced in
> google::protobuf::internal, I had to qualify that by adding internal:: to
> whatever was being referenced.
> - Other changes revolved around #ifdef/#ifndef certain includes, etc.
> (similar to MSVC).
> - A very interesting compiler complaint that took me a while to track
> down was how dependent names were being sometimes used/declared. When they
> referred to types and templates I had to disambiguate<http://womble.decadent.org.uk/c++/template-faq.html#disambiguation>.
> This cleaned things up and made the source cleaning compile across all
> platforms.
> - *The libraries are compiling under C++Builder and can be linked
> against.*
> - *protoc is not fully working. *It compiles fine but gets a runtime
> error when parsing options. I'm not yet sure what's going on here. A
> workaround is to not use the protoc that gets compiled with this project,
> but use the distributed binary to generate the C++ protocol buffers. Hoping
> I can make some headway on this issue soon.
> - I've compiled all changes on both gcc and MSVC. *All unit tests are
> passing.*
> In my opinion these changes would be great to have merged back into the
> protobuf proper branch as most of them aim to make the code base more cross
> compiler compliant. I suppose the C++Builder is a bit more strict on a few
> items.
> I would be happy to produce is diff/patch to be looked at by a main
> contributor on the google project. Please just let me know what I can do to
> help facilitate this.
We'd like to accept patches. However, we don't have enough engineering
resources to maintain another platform. Supporting a different platform
requires much testing work in the release process (also user support). I'd
suggest to keep the C++ builder branch. You can always merge when a new
version of protobuf is released.
