Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Problem With New Compiler

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    Sorry, Cliff -- it's just that I don't really want that code going out to everyone, since its my original code from the late 1990s, and it is an additional source of protection during installation of our main products...
    But I think I may have posted it in some form on the PB board in the early 2000s anyway, so I guess its not such a big deal LOL
    If you want I'll email it to you if you want to take a look.
    Jim Seekamp

    Comment


    • #22
      Jim,
      If you can email it to [email protected] that would be great. Maybe I can spot something (or maybe one of my error-handler routines can)

      If not, then no time lost in a second pair of eyes.
      Engineer's Motto: If it aint broke take it apart and fix it

      "If at 1st you don't succeed... call it version 1.0"

      "Half of Programming is coding"....."The other 90% is DEBUGGING"

      "Document my code????" .... "WHYYY??? do you think they call it CODE? "

      Comment


      • #23
        Jim,
        I will be the 1st to admit that I should have used a copy instead of modifying what you sent me. (But hey, when looking for an answer sometimes we don't think ahead)

        Anyways, if you can send another copy with the code only looking at the file you are having problems with, and only the file in question, I think I may have found the problem.

        I threw my ErrorHandling routines at it just to see what might stick and although I have not had a chance to fully digest just what it is you are doing, I did trip into something (heck even got an idea for another error handling routine) but anyways what you want to hear is

        One hint though if my guess is right......Look at your compress function and your "comp_format&"

        I may be wayyyyy off though because I goofed and did not keep a copy of the original and just started modifying, so I may be the cause of what I might have found.

        Engineer's Motto: If it aint broke take it apart and fix it

        "If at 1st you don't succeed... call it version 1.0"

        "Half of Programming is coding"....."The other 90% is DEBUGGING"

        "Document my code????" .... "WHYYY??? do you think they call it CODE? "

        Comment


        • #24
          Cliff, not sure what you are asking for...
          I'll email you the code again if that's what you want.
          In the meantime, I have created a dll just for the compression and compiled it in 9.01 and it works great, so I'm calling the dll. I just don't have time on my boss's dime to figure it out. (My error checks came up with nothing)
          Jim Seekamp

          Comment


          • #25
            PB 9.02 problem

            Hi Jim –

            Do you have any news regarding the problems you described?

            I am having a lot of problems too (with PB 9.02). Two major applications of mine that have been recompiled in the past years with each PB update (since PBDll5) and always worked as expected are totally broken now. They will exit with a GPF at some point which is not fixed even for the same set of input files. I have found (after a very long checking process) that the problem is related to the "improved" Instr function in PB 9.

            I have reported this problem to PB support 5 days ago including a description of a generic workaround I have found (which is not to use Instr at all in some of the application heavily used routines) which fixed the applications.

            Gil.

            Comment


            • #26
              Hi Gil--

              The real problem here is that we have absolutely no way to know if you are experiencing a compiler issue here. That's because you have not given us an example of failing code. None whatever, just a vague description of "INSTR is a problem".

              Now, we are fairly sure there can sometimes be a mismatch problem when the mask contains trailing nuls, and we're currently testing that exhaustively. However, even when testing is complete, we can only hope... and guess that your problem is part of that issue, as we're unable to check out what you may be seeing.

              I understand it may be difficult to provide an example, so we'll just go forward and hope it is corrected as expected. But please understand we cannot guarantee what we cannot see.

              Best regards,
              Bob

              Comment


              • #27
                Jim
                for what it is worth. Install pb p.02 cleanly on a separate computer and run your compile with all files on a local drive then compare executables.
                There should only be a few differences.
                Maybe only 16 of them. I wish every time i compiled the same source code with the same compiler, the executables would match exactly.
                But go ahead compare both results from separate machines.
                Also compile twice with the same machine and compare the executable results.
                Maybe pb support will compile it also and send you the executable results.
                May want to create the md5 results with md5sum to make sure source code is exact.
                Good luck. It took me two years to track down one of my problems in the past.
                p purvis

                Comment

                Working...
                X