Remove remaining Windows 95 support #8720
Merged
Conversation
|
I'm surprised it compiled |
nielsmh
force-pushed the
nielsmh:always-unicode
branch
2 times, most recently
from
eb2cc2d
to
070f1ad
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Motivation / Problem
By attempting to support compiling both with and without
UNICODEdefined, it makes the code more complex to read and write. There probably aren't any compilers available that target Windows 95/98/ME and also support the languages features we want any more regardless, so may as well clean it up.Description
More or less a search first for uses of the
UNICODEdefine, and simplify the code there.Then various other simplifications by cleaning up code that only supports special cases/downlevel OS.
Finally some cleanup by more searching for terms like
_T(,TCHAR, and_tcsand replacing them with plainwchar_tcode.Limitations
Definitely no longer builds a binary that works on 25 year old Windows systems.
Checklist for review
Some things are not automated, and forgotten often. This list is a reminder for the reviewers.
The bug fix is important enough to be backported? (label: 'backport requested')This PR affects the save game format? (label 'savegame upgrade')This PR affects the GS/AI API? (label 'needs review: Script API')This PR affects the NewGRF API? (label 'needs review: NewGRF')