R6034

Win 7 (64 bit) gives me the following on a popup window when I try to compile:

(caption) Microsoft Visual C++ Runtime Library

Runtime error!

program: C:\Program files (x86)\Silverfrost\FTN95\FTN95.EXE

R6034 An application has made an attempt to load the C runtime library incorrectly. Please contact the application's support team for more information.

[OK]

Close the popup window, and FTN95 gets on with the job. Running 6.10, and not only didn't I ask for .NET functionality when installing - all options were greyed out.

Any ideas?

Eddie

Are you running FTN95 from Plato or Visual Studio? This looks to me more like a problem with the IDE rather that the compiler.

Try reinstalling the IDE. If this does not correct the problem, is there a differenct version of the IDE available that you can try?

Hi Paul,

I'm running from a batch file, or by typing the command:

FTN95 -c SSS.FOR

or

FTN95 /C SSS.FOR (tried both, and it doesn't help putting /C at the end instead of the middle)

from a 'DOS box'. I can't get the hang of Visual Studio, and (no offense meant) I prefer a different editor to Plato.

It's not a real problem, as FTN95 runs anyway, but I would like to know if there was anything I can do to stop it. The computer is a brand new (out of the box Friday!) laptop, so there shouldn't be much dross loading first - there can't be, as it boots into Win 7 in under a minute.

SRC and SLINK are unaffected.

My preferred editor is PFE32, and thinking that its DOS box might be at fault, I tried running the batch file by clicking on it - with the same result. I'll have a go from PLATO, and see if that sidesteps the problem.

Eddie

I tried compiling through PLATO, and it does not give the error. I suppose there's a lesson in that for me - Old Dog → learn new tricks. Still confused though, as I can't see that PLATO does much more than invoke FTN95.EXE.

PLATO does some things that appear to be difficult through Clearwin ... repositionable toolbars, mouseover sensitivity, icons in menus. If I'm to use PLATO in future, it will give me a bad case of 'toolbar envy'!

Eddie

Plato effectively runs a DOS box in the background (via CreateProcess). This is essentially the same as opening a DOS box manually but there may be subtle differences.

You might like to check that you have only one salflibc.dll and that the same one is being accessed with the two approaches. The Silverfrost C library is built into this dll except for simple functions that are created inline (the FTN95 compiler is written in C/C++ and accesses the Silverfrost and not the Microsoft C runtime library).

Paul,

Yes, you were right: a different version of Salflibc.dll lurking in the subdirectory with the source code.

... which reminds me, why it is there. I've been using 4.90 for years. Anything I've tried later (starting with 5.20) breaks one of my programs. It's a simple thing really:

       I=WINIO@('%fn[Arial]%ts%`ap%`bg%tc[black]%22`rs%sf&',
     &          0.9D0, 70.0D0, 1.65D0, RGB@(238,238,243), SSTOT)

SSTOT is a character string. What appears on the screen now for the %22`rs string is exactly 2 rows of pixels of background colour at the base of the string more than in v4.90, and this throws out some very careful adjustments to deal with arbitrary font scaling for custom 'font sizes'. (In 4.90, the text background comes out as 16 pixels high, in 5.20 and 6.10, it is 18 pixels high). In all versions, there are 3 rows of pixels above 'ascenders'. It was 3 and now is 5 rows of pixels below 'descenders'. In all versions of Windows, the total height of text is 10 pixels, and this is a 'version of Salflibc.dll' thing, not a windows thing.

Would that I could carry on using 4.90, but its SLINK won't run in Windows 7, and Windows 7 is needed to let me enable the new font scaling enquiry mechanism that came in with Vista and is now de rigeur.

Eddie

Try experimenting with %ws or different font sizes with %`rs.

I will keep trying, but I have experimented with the formats you suggest.

I know the real answer, which is to do things a completely different way - start again from scratch. But, I have a huge investment in effort in the way I have gone. Maybe a retirement project!

Thanks for the suggestion about the second Salflibc.dll, it was spot on.

Eddie

Hi Eddie,

you mention that you still use 4.90. Is there any reason for this? I find this interesting because I still use that version. Somewhere during 5.x I got problems which I could not solve.

Hi Johann,

I'm running on an academic licence, and my Uni won't just upgrade me for a minor glitch. We are converting from XP to Win7, and when I found that SLINK with 4.90 wouldn't work in Win7, that was a good enough reason to upgrade. For some reason I can't fathom, my office computer had 5.20 installed. I can't tell you where it came from, but it's there! Now, I have been upgraded to 6.10, which works in XP and 7.

Generally, I was happy with 4.90, as the things it wouldn't do, did not bother me (much), although every time I saw an upgrade - especially to do with Clearwin - I wanted it. (4.90 won't do GIFs, for example). I started to discover the extra pixels problem by accident, as I had no idea what had happened, as I had no idea when 5.20 arrived! I just can't see what must have happened to %rs/Salflibc.dll after 4.90, and my workaround is not to use any new features, and use the older dll.

What problem(s) have you had with 5.xx?

Eddie

Two points...

1. You can probably use a new salflibc.dll with an old FTN95.exe but not vice-versa. I realise that this is not a helpful comment in the present context.

2. Eddie, if you will post a sample that does not look good with the current salflibc.dll then I will see if I can arrange some kind of fix.

Hi Eddie,

the forum is great (and at most I do like the memory capability). In this thread you will find the background. Actually I never checked it out with later versions.

Jacques

Eddie - my preferred editor is also PFE32. But unfortunately I have found that on my 64bit windows 7 laptop it is very flakey and freezes up a lot. As development and support of the editor finished several years ago then this is probably not too suprising.

Hi John, we also used PFE32 for a long time (and some still do). A good alternative is Notepad++. Initially I thought that this is only minor improvements to the notepad we are used to. However, this is more like UltraEdit (if one would like to compare it).

I would be interested to know how these other editors have the advantage over Plato.

Hi Paul, one thing is for sure: searching the web for an editor does not give Plato as a result - even if Plato is actually 'free'. Notepad++ on the other hand is one of the first results. Getting down to Plato you first must have an interest in Fortran.

One thing that would be nice in Plato is the possibility to edit a column.

If uncle Google does not know the answer...

Paul,

Something does not actually have to be [u:b308de3c64]better[/u:b308de3c64] to be preferred by someone. It is often that it is just [u:b308de3c64]more familiar[/u:b308de3c64], or works in a way that suits the user's custom and practice. For a long time I used WordStar and would not be persuaded otherwise until usable Windows came along and the Windows version of WordStar was demonstrably rubbish. Before that I had used various editors on a VAX and other systems, and going back into the dawn of time, various card and tape punches. PFE suits me as much as anything because it has a 'DOS box' facility on its toolbar, and this allows me easy access to command line compiling and linking - I've never been comfortable with 'MAKE' type utilities, and when I get fed up with typing my command lines, tend to put them into a BAT file and run that. My biggest irritation with PFE is that I can't jump to the end of a line easily.

I've also recently downloaded Notepad++, and would switch immediately if I could find a way to put the DOS box on its toolbar, although the menu item could no doubt be set against a hotkey. This application understands Fortran syntax, and colours it appropriately - and you can customise this facility. I really missed column edit from WordStar, but I haven't used it in Notepad++.

If I have to, I can comfortably use Notepad the standard Windows application.

Returning to Plato, I can't always find what I'm looking for, but I do know more or less where to look in the FTN95 documentation for the command line options. It's probably a mixture of my resistance to learn too many new tricks, and comfort in familiarity rather than there actually being anything wrong with Plato (except I don't much like its application icon!).

What I really don't like is SCION, as it is really too limited to be of much use.

John may have found that PFE32 doesn't work well in Win7 64bit, and I have yet to discover that as I haven't used it much, although it works fine in 32bit Win7, and even looks like a modern app (or would, if the toolbar icons were a bit livelier).

Regards

Eddie

Here's the problem shown up as images. The toolbars are supposed to look like this (and with 4.90 do):

When I use a later Salflibc.dll, they look like this - just to see how much extra space was created, I made the background for the text red:

I could just redraw every single icon, in every single state, some 2 pixels larger, plus the background (which is an essential thing to cover the gaps between the icons when a custom font size is selected). I've also reprogrammed this using a %gr area, and dumping %tb altogether, but I am struggling with the %th for this - that approach works perfectly for all custom font sizes, gives mousover responsiveness, etc etc etc

Bizarrely, the program does work with the older Salflibc.dll, even when compiled with a later version - even though as you say, it shouldn't.

Eddie

... and in case anyone is interested, the toolbars are all created with %tb, with icons 24 pixels high. The 'cartouche' for the status message is part of the backdrop bitmap incorporated with a %bm format code ... the %tb buttons all 'rise' to the front of the backdrop, and so does the %rs string. Separators and 'bar ends' are all %tb buttons that don't respond, but could easily have been part of the 'backdrop %bm (they are there, but are not seen).

As %tb buttons don't respond to mouseover (except by displaying %th), the look and feel isn't perfect. Most of the buttons have up, down, selected and greyed states - I've also got 'mousehover' state buttons as well. Understandably, I don't want to have to redraw the lot!

I captured the above without an active 'working file', so most of the buttons are greyed out.

E

Maybe you don't call ALLOCATE in your code. Also there may be other things that go wrong when you use a new compiler with an old dll. Some code will run OK.

I will need a short sample program to work on if I am to fix the problem.