Re: Bypassing the conversion wizard

It's been suggested that I post my question(s) here - I've thus far been
unable to get a satisfactory solution from the VC++ groups.

I discuss the problem at this link:
http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/vcgeneral/thread/c9ee8cb9-7ece-48f4-a0e4-db4674008eb3

Here's a brief synopsis of the issue. I was to port a C++ application
writting in 4.2, running on old Windows NT 3.5.1 machines to VC++ 2005 on new
machines running Windows XP SP3. I got the link error referenced in the
above link when building the VC++ 2005 version. To date, the only solution I
found was to obtain 4.2 from Microsoft, install it on the XP machines, build
the application and make my modifications using that.

I've returned to the problem of getting the application to build in VC++
2005. Having a version of VS that is still maintained by Microsoft is
preferable to using 4.2. This is particularly important since in the near
future I'm going to be making further modifications to the application.

The suggestion I'm currently working on is to build an MFC skeleton and then
import the program into it. The person who suggested this offered no details
and thus far my attempts to do that haven't succeeded. I also was unable to
create a project from existing files - that merely generated 700+ errors.

The thing to remember is that the VC++ application DOES compile, it just
doesn't link. Following the links to the discussion surrounding "CVTRES :
fatal error CVT1100: duplicate resource. type:ICON, name:1, language:0x0409
   LINK : fatal error LNK1123: failure during conversion to COFF: file
invalid or corrupt" will provide background. It does appear this is
something the conversion wizard has created.

Some additional info. The 4.2 version creates a ".bat" makefile - I assume
this is totally anachronistic and can be dispensed with (I did dispense with
it when I built the skeleton). There is also a makehelp facility - I'm
prepared to dispense with that too if it will get the program to build since
the users have other documentation available.

The skeleton-port-into approach seems promising - I'm just not sure what
steps I need to follow to do it.