1. Ver 4.0 WIN98 problem
- Posted by bernie Oct 10, 2008
- 836 views
Who's idea was this MEMORY change in the Euphoria source code ? I had code that worked in ver 3.11 without errors. I have tried for weeks to get code to work in ver. 4.0 with this new memory managed crap. I want to know who thought it was great. The WIN98 memory code does not work in ver. 4.0 properly. There is something wrong intermittently in call_backs and other defined function handling. I suspect that is going to cause problems in Linux too. I took the same code that wouldn't work on a WIN98 exw.exe and created a new exw.exe for win2000 and the code worked fine. I don't have simple program to demonstrate the problem. All I want is WIN98 4.0 code to work the same as it did on veer 3.11. If you can't do that; then use the memory management that rob originally wrote; that always worked. I don't see any advantage to your new and improved crap. I haven't seen any one comment on it's advantage. Also nobody has commented on my other post about the makefile.wat problem. Everyone who wants go back to the original memory management raise their hand.
2. Re: Ver 4.0 WIN98 problem
- Posted by ne1uno Oct 10, 2008
- 885 views
Everyone who wants go back to the original memory management raise their hand.
I think MANAGED_MEM=1 is the old or system memory manager, left in so win9x still works.
post a bug on sourceforge bugtracker and attach code exposing the bug, maybe someone else can simplify it.
I also think MANAGED_MEM is ignored in ex.exe so probably the extra define in makefile.wat is just a meaningless oversight.
could be wrong though,. and are you saying that an exe compiled with MANAGED_MEM=1 works on win2k and has intermitent problems on win98? or that an exe compiled w/o MANAGED_MEM works ok?
3. Re: Ver 4.0 WIN98 problem
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Oct 10, 2008
- 849 views
Who's idea was this MEMORY change in the Euphoria source code ?
Removing MANAGED_MEM to make euphoria a) faster and b) play nice with the OS's memory.
I had code that worked in ver 3.11 without errors. I don't see any advantage to your new and improved crap. I haven't seen any one comment on it's advantage. All I want is WIN98 4.0 code to work the same as it did on veer 3.11. If you can't do that; then use the memory management that rob originally wrote; that always worked. Everyone who wants go back to the original memory management raise their hand.
MANAGED_MEM=1 is using ver 3.11 - ver 3.11 lacked the ESIMPLE_MALLOC code, not the other way around. MANAGED_MEM=1 is the original memory management system.
I admit that WIN98 4.0 doesn't work with the new memory management system (the ESIMPLE_MALLOC code) but that is because of bugs in Windows 9x. (Specifically, in the W9x implementation of HeapAlloc() and friends.)
I suspect that is going to cause problems in Linux too.
As far as I know, Linux is fine. We always use ESIMPLE_MALLOC.
The WIN98 memory code does not work in ver. 4.0 properly. There is something wrong intermittently in call_backs and other defined function handling.
If the code worked fine in 3.11 and you are using MANAGED_MEM=1, I'd expect it to work fine in 4.0 as well. It is unfortunate that you don't have a simple test case because that would make the regression a lot easier to track down (especially in light of the fact that Windows 9x lacks proper memory protection).
4. Re: Ver 4.0 WIN98 problem
- Posted by DerekParnell (admin) Oct 11, 2008
- 847 views
Who's idea was this MEMORY change in the Euphoria source code ?
You're right, we do need to acknowledge this important enhancement in Euphoria.
I had code that worked in ver 3.11 without errors. I have tried for weeks to get code to work in ver. 4.0 with this new memory managed crap. I want to know who thought it was great. The WIN98 memory code does not work in ver. 4.0 properly. There is something wrong intermittently in call_backs and other defined function handling. I suspect that is going to cause problems in Linux too.
Nope. Its just Win98 that is brain dead.
I took the same code that wouldn't work on a WIN98 exw.exe and created a new exw.exe for win2000 and the code worked fine.
Doesn't this say something about win98?
I don't have simple program to demonstrate the problem. All I want is WIN98 4.0 code to work the same as it did on veer 3.11. If you can't do that; then use the memory management that rob originally wrote; that always worked.
That is not the only alternative. You could upgrade to a Microsoft supported version of Windows.
I don't see any advantage to your new and improved crap. I haven't seen any one comment on it's advantage.
Please excuse me, for I'm about to be very harsh. I apologize in advance.
It may be just me Bernie, but you are coming across as a rude whinger. Often making wild, dramatic and thoughless complaints that frequently turn out to be your mistake. In this case, there is a bug in the Win98 edition of v4.0 that is not present in other editions. So rather than carry on like a headless chook, it would be better if we calmly try to resolve this. I would like to help, but I don't have win98, and haven't used it for six or seven years.
If you haven't got a small demonstration program, the standard process is to start with a large program that has the problem, and chip away parts of it until it works. The last 'chip' is usually where the problem is.
Everyone who wants go back to the original memory management raise their hand.
No way. I've decide to make progress rather than stay in the past.
5. Re: Ver 4.0 WIN98 problem
- Posted by ChrisB (moderator) Oct 11, 2008
- 828 views
Hi Bernie,
You have made some great contributions to Eu, and I value them very highly, but never a truer was spoken than by Derek.
Please try to bear in mind that the developers are putting their own time and efforts into Eu4, and that it is still in alpha version, or still (technically) unstable, and not suitable for production work.
If you have issues with it's use on win98, then shouldn't you perhaps come up with a set of unit tests on win98, that could be your contribution. Far be it for me to suggest how you should do this, I know for a fact that you are far more capable with this than myself.
I tell, you what, I'll help. I'll set up a win 98 virtual box, and send me the programs that cause the problems (from the start, detailing the setup, compilation etc), and I'll see if I can reproduce them. Email me off list if you wish ( c r y l e x @ g ma il dot c om )
But railing against the developers efforts for an alpha version is honestly not the way forward.
Chris
6. Re: Ver 4.0 WIN98 problem
- Posted by bernie Oct 11, 2008
- 843 views
I apologize I will no longer support WIN98.
