C:\Users\Columbus\Documents\Visual Studio 2010\Projects\quake2-3.21\ctf\ctf.dsp : error : Project upgrade failed.
C:\Users\Columbus\Documents\Visual Studio 2010\Projects\quake2-3.21\game\game.dsp : error : Project upgrade failed.
C:\Users\Columbus\Documents\Visual Studio 2010\Projects\quake2-3.21\quake2.dsp : error : Project upgrade failed.
C:\Users\Columbus\Documents\Visual Studio 2010\Projects\quake2-3.21\ref_gl\ref_gl.dsp : error : Project upgrade failed.
C:\Users\Columbus\Documents\Visual Studio 2010\Projects\quake2-3.21\ref_soft\ref_soft.dsp : error : Project upgrade failed.
Quake 2 MS-VC 6 does not transfer to VS2010 Express
You're better off just making new VS 2010 solution and project files and manually adding the source. Chances are most of the code won't compile anyhow and your time will be better spent fixing those errors.
Good luck friend, I tried something similar to that with VS2008 after a few hours of fixing syntax bugs and things the compiler was not happy with I gave up =p
I'm sure someone already has modified sources that support more modern compilers, the ioQuake folks come to mind. You're in for a non-trivial task trying to get *any* largish body of VC6 code code to compile in VS2010, let alone a game written in Carmack's... shall we say... "retro" balls-to-the-wall coding style, and further still one which is known to have inline assembly (hint: VS2010 doesn't support inline assembly anymore, in favor of intrinsic instructions (or external assembly files).
There are easier paths between where you are and where you're trying to get to, unless the journey is especially appealing to you. (even then, this particular journey is going to be like trekking for months through dense woods, only to reach a clearing at the end and realize you've been paralleling a major freeway the entire time).
There are easier paths between where you are and where you're trying to get to, unless the journey is especially appealing to you. (even then, this particular journey is going to be like trekking for months through dense woods, only to reach a clearing at the end and realize you've been paralleling a major freeway the entire time).
Author
Good luck friend, I tried something similar to that with VS2008 after a few hours of fixing syntax bugs and things the compiler was not happy with I gave up =p
In 2002 i tried to compile quake 2 or 3 on vs2003 and it showed 500 error messages. weird.
Yes. Because VC6 came with both a compiler and a standard library that were completely broken with respect to the burgeoning standard at the time -- sure, VC6 "worked" left to its own devices, and in some ways it was even "good" for the time, but code written against VC6 is necessarily broken and won't work without modifications on *any* other compiler, even the very next iteration of VC, and rightfully so. VS2010's compiler still maintains switches to enable *some* of the broken behavior of VC6 in order to ease porting, IIRC.
Author
Yes. Because VC6 came with both a compiler and a standard library that were completely broken with respect to the burgeoning standard at the time -- sure, VC6 "worked" left to its own devices, and in some ways it was even "good" for the time, but code written against VC6 is necessarily broken and won't work without modifications on *any* other compiler, even the very next iteration of VC, and rightfully so. VS2010's compiler still maintains switches to enable *some* of the broken behavior of VC6 in order to ease porting, IIRC.
"Yes. Because VC6 came with both a compiler and a standard library that were completely broken with respect to the burgeoning standard at the time -- sure, VC6 "worked" left to its own devices, and in some ways it was even "good" for the time, . . . "
What the heck ?
Try to give a little referential documentation and evidence.
I'm not trying to start a war* with you dude, seriously, but honestly... reference? Evidence?Everyone and their grandmother knows that VC6 was broken as all shit. They didn't even get the scoping on 'for' loop counters correct (which is one of those switches they maintain, BTW). Perhaps its you who needs to gather the referential documentation.
* -- seriously, it wasn't I who down-voted your post, for what its worth. I find it counter-productive to down-vote people for being mistaken, and assume their misinformation isn't willful or malicious until they've made it clear that it is.
[quote name='Ravyne' timestamp='1317426926' post='4867786']
Yes. Because VC6 came with both a compiler and a standard library that were completely broken with respect to the burgeoning standard at the time -- sure, VC6 "worked" left to its own devices, and in some ways it was even "good" for the time, but code written against VC6 is necessarily broken and won't work without modifications on *any* other compiler, even the very next iteration of VC, and rightfully so. VS2010's compiler still maintains switches to enable *some* of the broken behavior of VC6 in order to ease porting, IIRC.
"Yes. Because VC6 came with both a compiler and a standard library that were completely broken with respect to the burgeoning standard at the time -- sure, VC6 "worked" left to its own devices, and in some ways it was even "good" for the time, . . . "
What the heck ?
Try to give a little referential documentation and evidence.
[/quote]
This is a relatively well-known fact. Visual Studio 6 shipped in June of 1998. C++ itself was not accepted as an ISO standard until September of 1998. VS6 was a decent toolchain for its time, but it was released (and thus, most of its major development) was done well in advance of any kind of final ratification of the C++ standard. The VS team had to pick what was popular and looked good from the available collection of C++ variants and ideas being tossed about and implement that.
Author
[quote name='Ravyne' timestamp='1317426926' post='4867786']
Yes. Because VC6 came with both a compiler and a standard library that were completely broken with respect to the burgeoning standard at the time -- sure, VC6 "worked" left to its own devices, and in some ways it was even "good" for the time, but code written against VC6 is necessarily broken and won't work without modifications on *any* other compiler, even the very next iteration of VC, and rightfully so. VS2010's compiler still maintains switches to enable *some* of the broken behavior of VC6 in order to ease porting, IIRC.
"Yes. Because VC6 came with both a compiler and a standard library that were completely broken with respect to the burgeoning standard at the time -- sure, VC6 "worked" left to its own devices, and in some ways it was even "good" for the time, . . . "
What the heck ?
Try to give a little referential documentation and evidence.
[/quote]
Try to have concern with your mouth and language regarding **** and older woman.
And quit annoying users with irrelevant point(s).
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement