|
|
|
This thread is locked; no one can reply to it.
|
1
2
|
| linear problem in 4.3.10? |
|
Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
 |
Quote: That was humour, man, but now you are seriously kissing butts X-D
I was more self depreciating there than anything to be honest. You should probably learn the difference -- |
|
GullRaDriel
Member #3,861
September 2003
 |
Thomas said:
You should probably learn the difference Sure, and I add that you already know what kind of humour mine is ;-p "Code is like shit - it only smells if it is not yours" |
|
Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
|
Quote: Sure, and I add that you already know what kind of humour mine is ;-p Sure, but I wouldn't call it humor -- |
|
GullRaDriel
Member #3,861
September 2003
|
It's because you don't know me IRL. Now come get a drink @ Lyon , France ! "Code is like shit - it only smells if it is not yours" |
|
Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
 |
Don't post here if you have nothing on topic to say. |
|
Milan Mimica
Member #3,877
September 2003
 |
Quote: Second question: If people really thought the ASM code was going to be unused, why was it still in the distribution? Shouldn't it have been deleted? Um, well, in 4.3 ASM is not only disabled by default but also not maintained any more and broken. I didn't want it deleted because this evil ASM thing penetrated into every Allegro pore and cannot easily be removed. It would cause destabilization of a rather stable branch. Heck, only disabling it causes problems.
-- |
|
djeleveld
Member #1,710
December 2001
|
Wouldnt you try to do it, just piece by piece? Take one function of the ASM code, rewite it in C and test. Repeat until done. I'll play a bit to see if this is possible. Is this the wrong way to go about it? |
|
Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
|
We only had a mechanism to disable it all at once. So we used that. We had C code prior to that, but it seems now that it hasn't all been tested as much as we'd have liked (it was written for non x86 platforms mainly, but in a way that should work for any C platform). -- |
|
Milan Mimica
Member #3,877
September 2003
|
Allegro uses some custom calling convention when ASM is enabled so the code cannot be combined... It's either ASM or C.
-- |
|
Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
|
Quote: But one thing is still not clear to me: Are you actually trying to run a program under WinXP compiled with DJGPP? Repeated for explititness DJGPP on XP was never a supported combination with Allegro. For a while, DJGPP itself had issues running on XP, let alone complex DJGPP apps. Most people that come in and ask about DJGPP and XP move along quickly to mingw as if nothing changed, and they generally have fewer problems (you get better hardware support with the windows code, some things are even hardware accelerated with the windows code). -- |
|
Bob
Free Market Evangelist
September 2000
 |
So when is Allegro dropping DOS support? -- |
|
Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
|
Quote: So when is Allegro dropping DOS support? All of the ports with no maintainer were removed from 4.9. The only ones left so far are Windows (new D3D9 driver, and new GL driver), OSX (GL \o/) and Unix (GL ftw). Also note, there is currently no Software implementation available for many functions. -- |
|
Evert
Member #794
November 2000
 |
Quote: So when is Allegro dropping DOS support?
It's not been actively maintained for years, but all the old code is still there in the 4.2/4.3 branches. If someone uses DOS, finds a problem and can provide a simple fix, fine. Removing it constitutes extra work. |
|
djeleveld
Member #1,710
December 2001
|
Yes, to be clear I am using a DJGPP compiled Allegro program on XP. Apparently other peoples experience has been quite different than mine, for me it has always worked flawlessly. If it aint broke dont fix it. I only use graphics and input, no sound or timers so my view may be somewhat biased. Different calling conventions between the C and ASM stuff is unfortunate. This could be why by initial attempts to change the bank switching code to C always segfault. I wont get into here on this thread about why i think dropping DOS support is a bad idea. IIRC, there is an old piece by Shawn Heargraves which sums my view up quite well. |
|
Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
|
Quote: I wont get into here on this thread about why i think dropping DOS support is a bad idea. Theres a reason it wasn't dropped in 4.2 and 4.3.x, but in 4.9, the only reason its not there, is noone is here to do the work. Anything without an active maintainer was removed for 4.9 as its essentially a rewrite, and the old code just wouldn't fit with the new api. If someone really wants DOS support for 4.9/5, they will make sure it gets done. Otherwise, they must not really want it -- |
|
Edgar Reynaldo
Major Reynaldo
May 2007
 |
Quote: Yes, to be clear I am using a DJGPP compiled Allegro program on XP. I think the point is that DJGPP compiles programs that will run in DOS and XP only emulates DOS (and poorly at that). If you want to run a program on WinXP , why not compile a win32 executable file using MinGW (Minimalist Gnu for Windows)? It's based off of gcc just like DJGPP but compiling win32 executables is what MinGW was made for. My Website! | EAGLE GUI Library Demos | My Deviant Art Gallery | Spiraloid Preview | A4 FontMaker | Skyline! (Missile Defense) Eagle and Allegro 5 binaries | Older Allegro 4 and 5 binaries | Allegro 5 compile guide |
|
Audric
Member #907
January 2001
|
Allegro 4 can still be used for years to come, if your game has to work also on DOS platforms. (edit: And the many experienced allogroers won't wipe their memory when they start using v5, so you can still get some support on your v4 programs) Since Allegro 3, I've seen how dense the Allegro documentation has become because of platform differences, so I welcome the drop as it means the docs of v5 can be written more easily, with a tighter result. |
|
Milan Mimica
Member #3,877
September 2003
|
Erm, mind you someone has offered to support DOS in 4.9 once:
-- |
|
Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
|
Just because you offer, doesn't mean it got done I don't see why it can't work, it doesn't need to use threads, the event system should work just fine in a pure poll mode. Somoene just has to do it. And one person saying they'd like to do it is kinda like "noise".. You get many people volunteering for stuff on a OpenSource project that never deliver for one reason or another. -- |
|
|
1
2
|
