Allegro.cc - Online Community

Allegro.cc Forums » Allegro Development » Allegro 5.0.11 released!

This thread is locked; no one can reply to it. rss feed Print
 1   2 
Allegro 5.0.11 released!
SiegeLord
Member #7,827
October 2006
avatar

On the 11th day of this new year, let us enjoy the release of Allegro 5.0.11! For those for whom it is the 12th already, you can enjoy the 12th release of the 5.0 branch (which is 5.0.11 :P).

This is a pretty boring release, except for those people for whom Allegro actually stops crashing as a result of the bugs fixed in this release. Aside from the most serious bug fixes that were merged from the unstable branch, this release comes with fancier documentation (syntax highlighting!) that has been in the unstable branch for awhile now, but hasn't graced 5.0 yet. Also, for whatever reason we never distributed the PDF manual, so here it is!. If all goes well, this should be the last 5.0.x release.

Get the sources here: https://sourceforge.net/projects/alleg/files/allegro/5.0.11/

Changes from 5.0.10 to 5.0.11 (January 2015)

The main developers this time were: SiegeLord and Peter Wang.

Core

  • Fix OSX backend on OSX 10.10 (lordnoriyuki).

Audio addon

  • Fix/avoid all sound examples freezing on OSX with the aqueue driver (Elias Pschernig).


  • Fix a deadlock in Pulseaudio driver.

Other

  • Fix build warnings.


  • Improve documentation (syntax highlighting).

MD5SUMS:
b089bc78588188f7730425e252794aa8  allegro-5.0.11.7z
e9a02220fada0488ed1dec6d5a8f6d33  allegro-5.0.11.tar.gz
b859278f7984111b18f2305388593f3d  allegro-5.0.11.zip

"For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increases knowledge increases sorrow."-Ecclesiastes 1:18
[SiegeLord's Abode][Codes]:[DAllegro5]:[RustAllegro]

beoran
Member #12,636
March 2011

Thanks! I guess this is nice for those who still use the 5.0.X branch. :)

Peter Hull
Member #1,136
March 2001

I think if you get Allegro from your distro's package manager (apt et al) it's likely to be 5.0.x still, so hopefully the packagers will pick up on this one.
Pete

ps: SL - it's year (201)5, month 0, day 11 = 5.0.11 - surely the omens are good for this one...

Gideon Weems
Member #3,925
October 2003

Flagged the allegro package for Arch.

SiegeLord said:

If all goes well, this should be the last 5.0.x release.

This gave me goosebumps.

SiegeLord
Member #7,827
October 2006
avatar

I think if you get Allegro from your distro's package manager (apt et al) it's likely to be 5.0.x still, so hopefully the packagers will pick up on this one.

I updated Homebrew, so the platform that benefits the most from this release is good now.

"For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increases knowledge increases sorrow."-Ecclesiastes 1:18
[SiegeLord's Abode][Codes]:[DAllegro5]:[RustAllegro]

Polybios
Member #12,293
October 2010

Thank you. :)

Linley Henzell
Member #3,963
October 2003

Thanks for doing this!
(yes, I still use 5.0.x)

APrince
Member #12,698
March 2011

Any chance the window flickering problem and not working multisampling on some ATI/AMD cards is fixed?

Gideon Weems
Member #3,925
October 2003

SiegeLord
Member #7,827
October 2006
avatar

That's actually 3'rd on my list of Allegro TODO things to look into!

Check it out:

~~~~ DOCS ~~~~

Document defaults for options
unreliable mode_info (not sure anymore... maybe it correctly returns NULL when it fails)

~~~~ WIN ~~~~

vertex_buffers not working?
display settings not setting correctly with D3D (a test case in C:/dev)
flickering multisampling https://www.allegro.cc/forums/thread/613548
D3D viewport vs OGL viewport - this will fall out of the projection revamp
Drawing mem bitmaps to display (D3D, ANY_WITH_ALPHA)

~~~~ OTHER ~~~~

core OpenGL context
generate allegro5.cfg programmatically
wrapping bitmaps (related to bitmap options)
set array of bitmaps for shaders
Mouse pressure is basically unimplemented
ogl_unlock_region_nonbb_fbo_writeonly shouldn't need _al_convert_data
al_calculate* functions should probably take void* instead of float*
native dialog windows buttons http://alax.info/blog/127
al_play_sample/stop_sample not thread safe -> TLS the whole thing
https://www.allegro.cc/forums/last-read/614489
al_get_audio_stream_length_secs - Should take const
https://gist.github.com/SiegeLord/6f482916dd4e0791d4f7 - Wow (probably a catalyst bug)
Collinear holes primitives http://p.baf.cc/4155 - damn lost it, ask jesseg2
Deadlock of al_install_audio on Travis
https://www.allegro.cc/forums/thread/614182
Look through old patches
CPU usage with the voice/attach to voice - seems to be just the voice running, but having trouble stopping the mixer to recover the speed...
initialization should produce an error or something, esp in debug builds
Awesome single flip not enough awesome 3.5.2
set new window title
enums used for function args (e.g. audio addon)
unify some options for bitmaps and displays (depth buffer size, multi sampling)

"For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increases knowledge increases sorrow."-Ecclesiastes 1:18
[SiegeLord's Abode][Codes]:[DAllegro5]:[RustAllegro]

Mark Oates
Member #1,146
March 2001
avatar

What was the reasoning for pushing releases more frequently?

--
AllegroFlareallegro.cc markdownAllegro logo
disclaimer: I have no idea what I'm talking about.

SiegeLord
Member #7,827
October 2006
avatar

What was the reasoning for pushing releases more frequently?

What gives you the idea that they are more frequent? :P

"For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increases knowledge increases sorrow."-Ecclesiastes 1:18
[SiegeLord's Abode][Codes]:[DAllegro5]:[RustAllegro]

Peter Hull
Member #1,136
March 2001

Oho I see I am listed as owning bug#351. When did that happen? I hope the OP isn't too mad at me!
pete

APrince
Member #12,698
March 2011

SiegeLord: Yep, that the one: https://www.allegro.cc/forums/thread/613548

I have 2 computers with ATI/AMD and it gives me kinda epileptic effect on both. I have also one nVidia card. The problem is there as well, but the flickering is so fast, its almost not noticable. When I turn off multisampling, the problem is gone.

Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
avatar

Forgive me if I sound insincere, but what's the advantage of having the non-WIP branch? Doesn't it normally have many bugs the WIP already solved, but people are supposed to use it because... it has less bugs than a WIP version?

That ambiguity has snagged me before. With Allegro, the WIP is already best from what I remember, but say, VLC, when I tried the dev branches and they crash the second they try to load a file on my computer.

-----sig:
“Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs

Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
avatar

The non wip branch gets bug fixes backported. The wip branch can have new bugs introduced quite often.

That said, allegro tends not to have too many nasty bugs introduced in the wip branch. Really, the WIP branch is a place where new things can be introduced, and then be broken, before stability is guaranteed. There's a reason it isn't called the unstable branch. It isn't crashy unstable, so much as work in progress.

--
Thomas Fjellstrom - [website] - [email] - [Allegro Wiki] - [Allegro TODO]
"If you can't think of a better solution, don't try to make a better solution." -- weapon_S
"The less evidence we have for what we believe is certain, the more violently we defend beliefs against those who don't agree" -- https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/592870205409353730

pkrcel
Member #14,001
February 2012

Actually it is exactly referenced as "unstable" in many places and that's why someone thinks it's better not to use it....while WIP it's a much better way to describe it I suppose.

It is unlikely that Google shares your distaste for capitalism. - Derezo
If one had the eternity of time, one would do things later. - Johan Halmén

Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
avatar

Yeah, it was originally WIP, and somehow "unstable" snuck in.

--
Thomas Fjellstrom - [website] - [email] - [Allegro Wiki] - [Allegro TODO]
"If you can't think of a better solution, don't try to make a better solution." -- weapon_S
"The less evidence we have for what we believe is certain, the more violently we defend beliefs against those who don't agree" -- https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/592870205409353730

pkrcel
Member #14,001
February 2012

Too bad...thou this discussion as already been (over)done, it would help to clean up the table there.

It is unlikely that Google shares your distaste for capitalism. - Derezo
If one had the eternity of time, one would do things later. - Johan Halmén

beoran
Member #12,636
March 2011

Personally I'm in favor of jumping to allegro 6 and then making the WIP branch the only maintained one. We're already short on hands to develop the WIP branch,maintaing a "stable" branch is a lot of work that causes confusion for the Linux distro maintainers. But anyway, let's wait and see. :)

Edgar Reynaldo
Member #8,592
May 2007
avatar

Allegro 6? We just got done coming out with Allegro 5 in the last few years. There's no API change that justifies bumping the major version up again. Further, the WIP version is not a substitute for the 'stable' version. The WIP version is subject to API and ABI changes where the stable version is not. Calling it Allegro 6 would be utterly confusing to the point where no one would use allegro anymore. It's bad enough people still think allegro 5 has the same api as allegro 4.

Gideon Weems
Member #3,925
October 2003

pkrcel said:

Too bad...thou this discussion as already been (over)done...

By whom? Can you provide a link?

Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
avatar

beoran said:

Personally I'm in favor of jumping to allegro 6 and then making the WIP branch the only maintained one. We're already short on hands to develop the WIP branch,maintaing a "stable" branch is a lot of work that causes confusion for the Linux distro maintainers. But anyway, let's wait and see. :)

Then there would never be a stable api to base your programs on. why would anyone decide to use allegro? the whole point of the stable branch is that it can be depended upon.

If distros get confused over wip branches, they are dumb.

By whom? Can you provide a link?

It's been talked about, but not super recently.

--
Thomas Fjellstrom - [website] - [email] - [Allegro Wiki] - [Allegro TODO]
"If you can't think of a better solution, don't try to make a better solution." -- weapon_S
"The less evidence we have for what we believe is certain, the more violently we defend beliefs against those who don't agree" -- https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/592870205409353730

SiegeLord
Member #7,827
October 2006
avatar

Personally, I do want to drop the stable branch and have only the 'unstable' branch. I think the way Allegro does it is atypical, and only results in a buggy stable branch without really any benefit over a more fine-grained API stability approach.

In my vision, this would involve tagging individual API entries with their stability, and then having the user opt-in into the unstable API. If they don't, then there'd be some sort of guarantee that things would keep compiling. I'm still working out the ABI details of that, if that's even possible. If you know any projects that do it this way, please tell me as I'd like to take a look.

Opting in would look something like this:

#define ALLEGRO_UNSTABLE
#include <allegro5/allegro.h>

"For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increases knowledge increases sorrow."-Ecclesiastes 1:18
[SiegeLord's Abode][Codes]:[DAllegro5]:[RustAllegro]

beoran
Member #12,636
March 2011

I agree with SiegeLord here, although we have to investigate how to keep a stable API and add WIP ones at the same time in one branch. If 6.0 is too radical let's just jump to 5.2. A rose by any name...

 1   2 


Go to: