forums.silverfrost.com Forum Index forums.silverfrost.com
Welcome to the Silverfrost forums
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FTN95 beta testing
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    forums.silverfrost.com Forum Index -> General
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
John-Silver



Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Posts: 842

PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2018 5:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks mecej4,

well my src.exe has the same date (time 20.37)
and exactly the same size as yours

The version I don't have indicated when I run command line which indicates it hasn't even started ?

But the CRC32 checksum (obtained with a freeware program 'Checksum Tool' (from sourceforge) is ot the same, it's :-- f1bb23ae
_________________
"This is the triumph of folly.
The machine, which knows no rest, ought to remain a tool,
... but instead becomes our master and will swallow up our life and soul"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mecej4



Joined: 31 Oct 2006
Posts: 924

PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2018 6:29 pm    Post subject: Re: Reply with quote

John-Silver wrote:

But the CRC32 checksum (obtained with a freeware program 'Checksum Tool' (from sourceforge) is ot the same, it's :-- f1bb23ae

Sorry, I had posted the file length as the checksum. The crc32.exe from http://esrg.sourceforge.net/utils_win_up/md5sum/ does give 0xF1BB23AE, so the problem is probably in one of the FTN95 DLLs. I did notice that SDBG64 started crashing more often when I used the DLLs that came with the 8.30.279 beta release.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John-Silver



Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Posts: 842

PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2018 7:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think that was the general gist of Dan's comments on the other post about SDBG.

I just triple checked that the dlls I have in situ are those in the beta 279 release and they are.

Mind it does raise the question as to why for you the demo ran ok.

I wonder if it could be related to OS. Again I'm windows 7, are you or are you running that Windows 8 or 10 rubbish Wink

Oh and I disabled my virus checker too (I use AVG 2018 Free), just in case as it always checks at first runtime any executable created. No difference
_________________
"This is the triumph of folly.
The machine, which knows no rest, ought to remain a tool,
... but instead becomes our master and will swallow up our life and soul"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John-Silver



Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Posts: 842

PostPosted: Mon Jul 16, 2018 7:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mecej4, can you confirm for which OS and which version exactly the example runs ok for you. Thanks.
_________________
"This is the triumph of folly.
The machine, which knows no rest, ought to remain a tool,
... but instead becomes our master and will swallow up our life and soul"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mecej4



Joined: 31 Oct 2006
Posts: 924

PostPosted: Mon Jul 16, 2018 3:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I run Windows 10-64, but I think that you should not attribute the problems that you ran into to either the version of Windows or the versions of the various components of FTN95.

I can reproduce your second error (Error 343, from FTN95.EXE) by compiling for 32-bit when SRC.EXE is either not found by FTN95.EXE or cannot be run for some reason.

I even ran into the first error (attempt to read from address 1) once, but I do not know how to reproduce it without fail.

When /64 is specified, when FTN95 attempts to run SRC or SLINK64 and those EXEs are not found (or cannot be run), FTN95 fails to produce an output file but gives no hint of having failed. I think that this deficiency must be fixed soon. As it is, one has to list the directory contents to see if an EXE, OBJ or RES file was produced, or look for the signatures of SRC/SLINK to be output when they are run.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PaulLaidler
Site Admin


Joined: 21 Feb 2005
Posts: 5416
Location: Salford, UK

PostPosted: Mon Jul 16, 2018 5:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
FTN95 fails to produce an output file but gives no hint of having failed.


FTN95 will provide a failure message in the next release.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mecej4



Joined: 31 Oct 2006
Posts: 924

PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2018 6:15 pm    Post subject: Re: Reply with quote

PaulLaidler wrote:
...
The warning about WINDOW_UPDATE@ can be ignored. This routine is unusual in that it can take arguments of various types. The linker has noted what it thinks might be an inconsistency and issued a warning.

Paul, there is a discrepancy between the interface of WINDOW_UPDATE@ in mswin.mod (which is compiled from mswinmod.f90), in which WINDOW_UPDATE@ is declared with the attributes EXTERNAL and INTEGER*4; i.e., it is an integer function.

In contrast, in demo.f95 as well as at https://silverfrost.com/ftn95-help/clearwinp/dialog/updatingwindows.aspx, WINDOW_UPDATE@ appears to be a subroutine.

Thus, the discrepancy is between having a return value and none, rather than about the type of the argument(s). Please clarify.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    forums.silverfrost.com Forum Index -> General All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group