Re: Ver 4.0 WIN98 problem
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Oct 10, 2008
- 851 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).
