Re: [Harbour] 2008-02-04 09:31 UTC+0100 Przemyslaw Czerpak (druzus/at/priv.onet.pl)
Hi Przemek, Viktor, I know that it was not intentional and I only express my bad feeling. Sorry if you take this part personally. There will be some personally taken parts in this mail too, sorry in advance. Overall I'd suggest to move forward, do the release, and so on. See my suggestion for the header file problem. In fact the dangerous modification was done by Ryszard but such things may happen when you are forcing deepd modification in "last minute". I though that e agree that Forcing? I've asked the group whether I should do it, and I got your positive answer (now again), while I got no negative ones. If that's forcing I completely agree, but usually forcing (in my eye) means doing something in a pushy way or without any consensus. And the only reason I've asked about this, is because we've already agreed on this previously, and I simply forgot about it in the meanwhile. Granted, the original idea must have come from me, but this doesn't seem like forcing to me. only things which are well tested and will not break release process should be commited. If sth cannot be done in safe way it should not be commited. AFAIR when few weeks (months) ago we want to release binaries you also have some "fixes" on the last minutes. Just for you information - I know some real bugs which have to be fixed but I do not commit anything because I'm waiting for the end of release process. This bugs are not citical, only few peope knows aboout them and in few cases it's a risk that I'll start some long process of fixes. I understand your POV, but in my understanding fixes can be committed. In fact only fixes can be committed, no new features. (we now actually miss some make_gcc.sh's from most contribs due to a recent addition, which I think would need to be finished. But I try not to care.) Please release the new version ASAP. It will make many people Let's do it. I have nothing pending here. (I had this only one pending with conditions, as I wrote two weeks ago). happy and open the doors for developers for farther modifications. I have no doubts that next Harbour version will beat the older one even if it will have to introduced some fundamental modifications in core API. I'm usually quite pedantic in code I make public but it's not my life goal but the result of some practice. I hate bugs which are results of nested bad design decisions. In longer terms programmers have to spend more time on bug fixes then on productive work. But I've never wrote a code (probably with only one exception written directly in machine code even without any assembler) and I was happy with it and I couldn't say that nothing can be improved. If we agree that it's time to make release then it's compromise - common group decisions. It was possible to release version 1.0 half year ago. It's a time without any new extensions when all developers are waiting for a time when they can introduced new (often long waiting) features. And we do not even finished base modifications like MT mode which may stronlgy interact with existing API so even todays modifications may be temporary. It's normal and good because it means that Harbour is living project. I agree. I'm sorry if the whole process resulted in file losses for you :( Unfortunately bumps are expected, even if I find it odd that our make system can be such a dangerous beast. It was nothing more then a typo which can appear in any make file in any project. It's a risk of using development code. And this is the reason why such modifications should never be done in few hours before final release when we ask many people to make build tests. I thought that you are one of the last person who will do sth like that. Hm, again blaming this on me. Well, this didn't seem like something complicated, did it? Have anyone had any complaints before the fact? No. Did I ask on the list if I should do it? Yes. Did the group (and you) agreed to do it? Yes. Did anyone vetoed or expressed any concern beforehand? No. I'm _really_ sorry if this turned out to be that bad, but reading the messages on the list, I was under the strong impression that this is what we want, and that I'm actually doing something good. I wouldn't do anything if the slightest concern had been expressed. I have the strange feeling that my intentions are being questioned, and if this is the case I can refrain from committing anything, because you can imagine how good is it to read through such mails, after being spent some considerable time on Harbour, all the way under the false (?) impression that I have group support, while in reality it's percieved as some rogue, self inducted, "pushy" action. I had actually expected (but definitely hoped) you to take part in this rename process because of your different environment and skills, especially after you've agreed and even gave input to it. I agreed only with a condition that you can make it well without breaking release process. I simply though that you will cha
[Harbour] Re: 2008-02-07 20:17 UTC+0100 Przemyslaw Czerpak (druzus/at/priv.onet.pl)
Przemek: >2008-02-07 20:17 UTC+0100 Przemyslaw Czerpak (druzus/at/priv.onet.pl) > * harbour/config/lib.cf >* moved some definitions for easier detecting library build mode > * harbour/config/os2/dir.cf > * harbour/config/os2/global.cf >* some modifications which should help for old GNU make OS2 ports > and maybe also current ones With these changes, with "old" make.exe (3.76.1): - make_gnu.cmd: work entirely - make_gnu.cmd install: work entirely - make_gnu.cmd clean: fail Do not delete group of files, so can not remove directories and do not delete individual files I used near all day to test some changes and "new" make.exe I made changes to global.cf locally and now it can delete group of files, remove directories, but fail to delete individual files, as example: CMD.EXE /C IF EXIST ..\..\lib\os2\gcc\hbcommon.a del /n ..\..\lib\os2\gcc\hbcommon.a With "new" make.exe ( 3.81beta1, 3.81r2 ): As described before, it does not build anything in any directory Tracing this message on screen: [E:\harbour802]make -r 1>make_gnu.log ../../Makefile:29: ../../config/lib.cf: No such file or directory make[3]: *** No rule to make target `../../config/lib.cf'. Stop. make[2]: *** [descend] Error 2 it happen in: a) source\common\Makefile: include $(TOP)$(ROOT)config/lib.cf b) ../../config/lib.cf @$(MK) -C $(ARCH_DIR) -f $(GRANDP)Makefile 'TOP=$(GRANDP)' $(LIB_NAME) where: $(GRANDP)Makefile = ../../Makefile and file ../../Makefile can not be located I am focused in to be ready to build Harbour under OS/2 without problems for nearest release. As now it build/install entirely with "old" make.exe, then we are ready to release Problems with "clean" and "new" make.exe can be fixed later David Macias ___ Harbour mailing list Harbour@harbour-project.org http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
Re: [Harbour] Asynchronous procedures
Saulius Zrelskis wrote:
> /*
> TODO: BCC compiler error???!!!
> I had a situation when without this donothing() call the whole loop
is not
> executed?! Really, strange! Do we have BCC error here? I hadn't
time to do
> CPU level debugging, but an extra function call influences
generated CPU
> code a lot:
> - with donothing() ulEntryCount is optimized and stored in edi
register;
> - without donothing() ulEntryCount is stored in stack frame [ebp -
something].
> Removing -OS compiler switch does not change results.
> */
> donothing();
Can you share your experience about BCC compiler bug observation?
Hi,
my code was not working as expected - pcode was not fixed up. I've put
fprintf( stdout, ...) to debug some variables of my function. fprintf()
indicated that all variables has expected values and code is ok. I've
looked to result and pcode was fixed up. After I've commented out
fprintf(), my code was not working as expected again... I had no enough
time to find the reason (BCC bug, or my bug) for this. I've just noticed
that even calling donothing()
static void donothing( void )
{
}
makes code to work OK. So, I've left this dummy call and put comment
into source. I'm going to analyze this in some spear time (not sure when
exactly...).
Best regards,
Mindaugas
___
Harbour mailing list
Harbour@harbour-project.org
http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
[Harbour] 2008-02-08 15:58 UTC+0100 Przemyslaw Czerpak (druzus/at/priv.onet.pl)
2008-02-08 15:58 UTC+0100 Przemyslaw Czerpak (druzus/at/priv.onet.pl) * harbour/include/hbcomp.h * harbour/include/hbmacro.h * harbour/include/hbexprb.c * harbour/source/vm/macro.c * harbour/source/compiler/hbmain.c ! fixed name conflict in privates/publics declaration. Harbour allows to declare memvars with the same name as file wide statics or fields but this extensions was not working well in some cases and can cause unexpected results in variable declaration, f.e. try this code: static v:="static" proc main() public v:="public" ? v, M->v return compiled with -n -w switches and also with -n -w -a before this fix. ! fixed some compile time warnings in memvars declaration to be more Clipper compatible ! fixed compiling external modules (DO [WITH ]) when function is already declared but with different letter case. Harbour does not convert in DO statement to upper case to play well with case sensitive file systems and it could cause confusing warning message: Cannot open .prg, assumed external * harbour/source/compiler/harbour.y * harbour/source/compiler/harbour.yyc ! added protection against bug in bison destructors which might cause multiple free the same memory block on syntax error due to * harbour/source/rdd/dbf1.c ! added missing binary flag for daytime fields * harbour/source/rdd/dbfntx/dbfntx1.c ! fixed possible memory leak during accessing corrupted NTX files ! fixed possible GPF during accessing corrupted NTX files * harbour/source/compiler/genc.c * minor cleanup * harbour/config/os2/global.cf ! use FOR command to delete group of files best regards Przemek ___ Harbour mailing list Harbour@harbour-project.org http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
[Harbour] "make_gnu clean" not work
Hi, "make_gnu clean" not work fine. I am use WinXP SP2+MinGW D:\harbour>make_gnu clean "'" no se reconoce como un comando interno o externo, programa o archivo por lotes ejecutable. make: *** [clean] Error 1 D:\harbour> Best Regards GVS ___ Harbour mailing list Harbour@harbour-project.org http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
[Harbour] What about stopping the release process?
It seems not the right moment to take decisions about 1.0 RC1. I suggest to reopen the tree for development, wait and see... best regards, Lorenzo ___ Harbour mailing list Harbour@harbour-project.org http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
R: [Harbour] 2008-02-04 09:31 UTC+0100 Przemyslaw Czerpak(druzus/at/priv.onet.pl)
I subscribe any word of Pritpal Bedi -Messaggio originale- Da: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Per conto di Pritpal Bedi Inviato: venerdì 8 febbraio 2008 15.49 A: harbour@harbour-project.org Oggetto: Re: [Harbour] 2008-02-04 09:31 UTC+0100 Przemyslaw Czerpak(druzus/at/priv.onet.pl) Hello Viktor Hello Przemek Here is a humble request on both of you, please continue with Harbour as you ever did. Nobody did wrong to anybody, it just went accidentally. You must know that a huge Harbour community is desperately dependant on your contributions. And I hope you will not disappoint them. Please reply to this message in affirmation. Consider this is a REQUEST of whole community. Regards Pritpal Bedi, INDIA-USA -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/2008-02-04-09%3A31-UTC%2B0100-Przemyslaw-Czerpak-%28druzus-at-priv.onet.pl%29-tp15263829p15356493.html Sent from the Harbour - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Harbour mailing list Harbour@harbour-project.org http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour ___ Harbour mailing list Harbour@harbour-project.org http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
[Harbour] Re: 2008-02-04 09:31 UTC+0100 Przemyslaw Czerpak (druzus/at/priv.onet.pl)
On Friday, February 08, 2008, 5:12 Przemyslaw Czerpak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: PC> Brian, can you ask extended system if we can have ace.h in PC> our SVN/CVS repositories? I had requested for such permission in December, 1999. And I got an answer from them, which I immedeately posted to this mail list. Here is this answer: === "The full source thing answers the question. We should not care if ACE.H gets distributed as part of the Harbour source. The copyright notice needs to be maintained, though. Alexander may want to add some information somewhere about where to get updates if necessary (i.e. the Advantage web site)." This is the reply I got from Mike Lydon our R&D manager. You should have all the software. Just add a copyright notice to your licensing and that should work. Bill Schuler Database Products Southeast Sales Manager Phone (800)235-7576 ext. 6051 (208)322-7575 ext. 6051 Fax (208)327-5006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 5777 N. Meeker Ave. Boise, ID 83711 http://www.advantagedatabase.com http://solutions.advantagedatabase.com Regards, Alexander http://kresin.belgorod.su ___ Harbour mailing list Harbour@harbour-project.org http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
[Harbour] CHANGELOG: 2008-02-08 19:41 UTC+0100 Viktor Szakats (harbour.01 syenar.hu)
2008-02-08 19:41 UTC+0100 Viktor Szakats (harbour.01 syenar.hu) * contrib/rddads/make_gcc.sh * contrib/hbfimage/make_gcc.sh ! Two minor corrections to *_INC path setting examples for Windows. -- Brgds, Viktor ___ Harbour mailing list Harbour@harbour-project.org http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
Re: [Harbour] 2008-02-04 09:31 UTC+0100 Przemyslaw Czerpak (druzus/at/priv.onet.pl)
Hello Viktor Hello Przemek Here is a humble request on both of you, please continue with Harbour as you ever did. Nobody did wrong to anybody, it just went accidentally. You must know that a huge Harbour community is desperately dependant on your contributions. And I hope you will not disappoint them. Please reply to this message in affirmation. Consider this is a REQUEST of whole community. Regards Pritpal Bedi, INDIA-USA -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/2008-02-04-09%3A31-UTC%2B0100-Przemyslaw-Czerpak-%28druzus-at-priv.onet.pl%29-tp15263829p15356493.html Sent from the Harbour - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Harbour mailing list Harbour@harbour-project.org http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
Re: [Harbour] 2008-02-04 09:31 UTC+0100 Przemyslaw Czerpak(druzus/at/priv.onet.pl)
Pritpal, Viktor, Przemek, all, I'm not a Harbour developper but I absolutely agree and I want to participate in this request ... I respect them but I'm very sad after hearing the Przemek's decision. Best regards Juan - Original Message - From: "Pritpal Bedi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 3:49 PM Subject: Re: [Harbour] 2008-02-04 09:31 UTC+0100 Przemyslaw Czerpak(druzus/at/priv.onet.pl) Hello Viktor Hello Przemek Here is a humble request on both of you, please continue with Harbour as you ever did. Nobody did wrong to anybody, it just went accidentally. You must know that a huge Harbour community is desperately dependant on your contributions. And I hope you will not disappoint them. Please reply to this message in affirmation. Consider this is a REQUEST of whole community. Regards Pritpal Bedi, INDIA-USA -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/2008-02-04-09%3A31-UTC%2B0100-Przemyslaw-Czerpak-%28druzus-at-priv.onet.pl%29-tp15263829p15356493.html Sent from the Harbour - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Harbour mailing list Harbour@harbour-project.org http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour ___ Harbour mailing list Harbour@harbour-project.org http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
Re: [Harbour] 2008-02-04 09:31 UTC+0100 Przemyslaw Czerpak(druzus/at/priv.onet.pl)
Hi all, Not to minimize the contributions of the other developers, but I think we would all agree that Harbour would not be the success it is today without Przemek's contributions and, losing him (especially being so close to Release 1), will no doubt have a serious negative impact on the project. :-( Randy. At 10:31 AM 2/8/2008, you wrote: Pritpal, Viktor, Przemek, all, I'm not a Harbour developper but I absolutely agree and I want to participate in this request ... I respect them but I'm very sad after hearing the Przemek's decision. Best regards Juan - Original Message - From: "Pritpal Bedi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 3:49 PM Subject: Re: [Harbour] 2008-02-04 09:31 UTC+0100 Przemyslaw Czerpak(druzus/at/priv.onet.pl) Hello Viktor Hello Przemek Here is a humble request on both of you, please continue with Harbour as you ever did. Nobody did wrong to anybody, it just went accidentally. You must know that a huge Harbour community is desperately dependant on your contributions. And I hope you will not disappoint them. Please reply to this message in affirmation. Consider this is a REQUEST of whole community. Regards Pritpal Bedi, INDIA-USA -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/2008-02-04-09%3A31-UTC%2B0100-Przemyslaw-Czerpak-%28druzus-at-priv.onet.pl%29-tp15263829p15356493.html Sent from the Harbour - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Harbour mailing list Harbour@harbour-project.org http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour ___ Harbour mailing list Harbour@harbour-project.org http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour ___ Harbour mailing list Harbour@harbour-project.org http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
[Harbour] 2008-02-08 16:51 UTC+0100 Marek Paliwoda (mpaliwoda at interia pl)
2008-02-08 16:51 UTC+0100 Marek Paliwoda (mpaliwoda at interia pl) + harbour/contrib/gtwvg/make_gcc.sh + harbour/contrib/hbapollo/make_gcc.sh + harbour/contrib/hbclipsm/make_gcc.sh + harbour/contrib/hbct/make_gcc.sh + harbour/contrib/hbfbird/make_gcc.sh + harbour/contrib/hbfimage/make_gcc.sh + harbour/contrib/hbgd/make_gcc.sh + harbour/contrib/hbgt/make_gcc.sh + harbour/contrib/hbmisc/make_gcc.sh + harbour/contrib/hbmsql/make_gcc.sh + harbour/contrib/hbmysql/make_gcc.sh + harbour/contrib/hbnf/make_gcc.sh + harbour/contrib/hbodbc/make_gcc.sh + harbour/contrib/hbole/make_gcc.sh + harbour/contrib/hbpgsql/make_gcc.sh + harbour/contrib/hbtip/make_gcc.sh + harbour/contrib/hbtpathy/make_gcc.sh + harbour/contrib/hbw32/make_gcc.sh + harbour/contrib/hbw32ddr/make_gcc.sh + harbour/contrib/hbwhat32/make_gcc.sh + harbour/contrib/hbziparch/make_gcc.sh + harbour/contrib/hbzlib/make_gcc.sh + harbour/contrib/rddads/make_gcc.sh + harbour/contrib/xhb/make_gcc.sh + Added missing files to allow compilation using non standard build system. Please note that some contribs require external packages, so to succesfuully compile them you will have to set a proper environment variable, pointing to a list of directories, containig required package header files. Those envvars are listed below : APOLLO_INC FIREBIRD_INC FREEIMAGE_INC GD_INC MYSQL_INC PGSQL_INC ZLIB_INC ADS_INC Note that those envvars may contain list of directories, for example : export ADS_INC="/usr/include include ." Also note that on Windows systems, using MingW or Cygwin, you will have to generate a proper import files from dlls, available in those packages - using MingW or Cygwin dlltool - to build end user programs, utilizing those packages. * harbour/contrib/mtpl_gcc.mak * harbour/contrib/mtpl_gcc.sh * harbour/contrib/make_gcc_all.sh + Added the rest of contrib libs to compile * harbour/contrib/hbtpathy/tplinux.c * harbour/contrib/hbtpathy/tpos2.c * harbour/contrib/hbtpathy/tpwin32.c + Added an operating system guard around the content of thses files to allow including all three files in a library. A remark : Newly updated files for unix like systems do not try to build import libraries from respective packages. I was against this move from the begining, because it is a user's responsibility to have/create required import libraries, not a harbour one. Not to mention that some packages may include those libraries in their distributions, in which case these libraries should be used instead. And last but not least, adding automatic import feature horribly complicates the whole alternative make system, requires additional tools, not included in harbour, and is not compatible with systems which do not require it at all. So I am going to remove it after the release process finishes from the rest of non GNU makefiles/batfiles. -- Marek Paliwoda mpaliwoda at interia pl -- Sprawdz gdzie lezy snieg, czy dzialaja armatki i jak przygotowane sa stoki >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1cfc ___ Harbour mailing list Harbour@harbour-project.org http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
[Harbour] Error en comando USE / Error in USE command
Hello This sample: procedure main use D:\harbour\tests\test.dbf ? first quit In Clipper: E:\SyS_GVS\CuC>test1 Homer E:\SyS_GVS\CuC> In Harbour: E:\SyS_GVS\CuC>testhb Error BASE/1003 Variable does not exist: FIRST Called from MAIN(3) E:\SyS_GVS\CuC> TEST.DBF in folder \harbour\tests Best Regards GVS ___ Harbour mailing list Harbour@harbour-project.org http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
Re: [Harbour] What about stopping the release process?
On Friday 08 February 2008 10:48:58 am Lorenzo Fiorini wrote: > It seems not the right moment to take decisions about 1.0 RC1. > > I suggest to reopen the tree for development, wait and see... No, we need to release a build. If we don't this thing will never get done. Why should we not finish Harbour at this time? -- "Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." - Mark Twain ___ Harbour mailing list Harbour@harbour-project.org http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
Re: [Harbour] What about stopping the release process?
On Feb 9, 2008 5:33 AM, Phil Barnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Why should we not finish Harbour at this time? Because the two main developers don't agree about latest changes. Because both have announced they'll leave the project. So since it's unlike we'll have a 1.1 I think we should at least leave the lib names as they have been in the last 8 years and do a favor to poor users. best regards, Lorenzo ___ Harbour mailing list Harbour@harbour-project.org http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
Re: [Harbour] What about stopping the release process?
On Saturday 09 February 2008 12:08:39 am Lorenzo Fiorini wrote: > So since it's unlike we'll have a 1.1 I think we should at least leave > the lib names as they have been in the last 8 years and do a favor to > poor users. Is the repository in an unusable state? -- "Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." - Mark Twain ___ Harbour mailing list Harbour@harbour-project.org http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
Re: [Harbour] What about stopping the release process?
Lorenzo, Why should we not finish Harbour at this time? Because the two main developers don't agree about latest changes. It happens not the first time, and I hope not the last time ;-). Many times the difference in opinions is a stimulating process. Of course, sometimes it's a "destructive" process, but not so many times (I hope :)). Because both have announced they'll leave the project. And I am not sure if they did not do it based on current emptions. I can clearly understand the decision of leaving the project, based on limited time, loose of interes, other involvement, etc., but I can't say I understand both current decisions very well. I hope they both don't mind and stay here. It's clear without them the project is dead (again). So since it's unlike we'll have a 1.1 I think we should at least leave the lib names as they have been in the last 8 years and do a favor to poor users. Truely speaking the whole libnames problem is a little bit unclear to me. I don't want to jump in, or "take a one side" in this disputation, but certainly if the decision was to rename the libnames, it would be better to do it now than later. "1.0" means something (at least to me). BTW, I don't know technical reasons behind having so much libraries instead of just one harbour-static.lib, but surely I never liked the current set of so much libraries at all. If it has any benefits, I doubt they'll overcome its weaknesses (a simple example is a cross libraries dependency, which makes troubles for some linkers). -- Marek -- Sprawdz, czy pasujesz do swojego partnera! http://link.interia.pl/f1ce7 ___ Harbour mailing list Harbour@harbour-project.org http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
