View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
DanRRight
Joined: 10 Mar 2008 Posts: 2927 Location: South Pole, Antarctica
|
Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2018 8:41 am Post subject: GET_SCREEN_BLOCK@ was removed? |
|
|
My program crashed on this absent library function. Do not see it even in documentation while it is was OK just 3 years back. What's to do with this? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
JohnCampbell
Joined: 16 Feb 2006 Posts: 2615 Location: Sydney
|
Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2018 10:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dan,
See Appendix A. "Functions ported from DBOS"
page 429+ of clearwin.pdf (Feb 2000)
The replacement is :
CREATE_GRAPHICS_REGION@ etc.
John |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
DanRRight
Joined: 10 Mar 2008 Posts: 2927 Location: South Pole, Antarctica
|
Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2018 2:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks, John, somehow I missed two things: the change itself and the documentation notes about it. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
PaulLaidler Site Admin
Joined: 21 Feb 2005 Posts: 8217 Location: Salford, UK
|
Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2018 8:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
GET_SCREEN_BLOCK@ is an old DBOS routine that can be accessed from salflibc.dll (i.e. 32 bits) because it is "hard-wired" to a Win32 replacement function.
The recommended replacement is GET_SCREEN_DIB@ which has the same arguments except that they are 32 bit values rather than 16 bit values.
GET_SCREEN_DIB@ is exported by clearwin64.dll. The Win32 replacement mentioned above is not currently exported by clearwin64.dll.
Last edited by PaulLaidler on Sun Aug 05, 2018 1:14 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
LitusSaxonicum
Joined: 23 Aug 2005 Posts: 2403 Location: Yateley, Hants, UK
|
Posted: Sun Aug 05, 2018 10:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
John,
It's simpler than that. The graphics facilities provided for DOS with the DBOS extender were completely supplanted by Clearwin+a very long time ago. I went to the launch of Clearwin, which was around 1992. A handful of the DBOS graphics routines were also provided to ease the transition. But that was a quarter century or more ago, and we move on.
There's nothing to stop someone like Dan writing a routine for himself, using the obsolete name (but without the @) which internally uses the new(er) routines. If such a person was public-spirited, they would post it on the forum!
Eddie |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|