OpenEuphoria

Re: Why is EXW Win 3.1 application ?

• Posted by Euman <euman at bellsouth.net> Jan 16, 2002
• 441 views

Hello all,

I found the first difference in Watcom versus LCC an Borland
Watcom compiles a Windows 3.1 .exe 

I found that Edit controls that are read-only,
junk = SendMessage(iniEdit,EM_SETREADONLY, ES_READONLY,0)

The Edit controls background color will not appear light-grey as it should
for Win 95 + if compiled with Watcom also, there will be excessive scroll
space after the end of text in the control.

Watcom may be faster but is not perfect...

I push for LCC being more Win 95+ compatible that Wat or Bor..
Its too bad Euphoria isnt setup to be more LCC specific!

True there are bugs in LCC but I dont think there are any more than are in
Watcom or Borland.

Euman
euman at bellsouth.net

Q: Are we monetarily insane?
A: YES

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Euman" <euman at bellsouth.net>

> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Robert Craig" <rds at RapidEuphoria.com>
> 
> > Euman writes:
> > > I have Watcom 11c installed and havent had any problem thus far.
> > > Let me know if I could be of assistance.
> > 
> > You could build your own exw.exe using watexw.bat,
> > or you could translate/compile a small program using Watcom,
> > then you could check whether it has 4.0 or 3.1 in the (not compressed)
> > .exe header as Martin described. Or you could just send your .exe to Martin 
> > and/or myself for checking. Thanks.
> 
> Watcom 11c compiles with 30000A 
> LCC compiles with 400000
> I havent compiled a Borland version "I did but deleted it"
> 
> I dont see any difference in any controls here but thats not to say there
> arent any. I currently can not run any Win32lib programs with 2.3 alpha
> source that is compiled with any of the supported compilers.
> But most of the API code Ive written "recently" seems to run fine on Watcom
> and LCC
> compiled source versions.
> .
> There are some issues with the source but I think Rob is aware of these, if he
> isnt,
> he is now.
> 
> BTW, Rob
> One thing I would like to see in the Beta or Final release is a "with handle"
> to Close the handles to interpreted / run programs. Maybe I'll whip something
> up
> when I get the time.
> 
> Euman
> 
> > 
> > Martin Stachon wrote:
> > > It is about subsystem version in
> > > the PE header. I changed the version
> > > by changing offsets #000000C8 to #000000CA :
> > > from #03000A (3.10) to #040000 (4.0)
> > > (In unpacked exw) Now Windows treat exw as
> > > 4.0 application.
> >  
> > Regards,
> >    Rob Craig
> >    Rapid Deployment Software
> >    http://www.RapidEuphoria.com