Sorry, I lost it...
But let's be a bit more productive, I think most things has been
already said in this topic here :)
Brgds,
Viktor
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 10:24 PM, Massimo Belgrano wrote:
> can be interesting Also only WUI?
>
> 2009/3/17 Viktor Szakáts
>
> both? probably none.
>> Brgds,
>>
can be interesting Also only WUI?
2009/3/17 Viktor Szakáts
> both? probably none.
> Brgds,
> Viktor
>
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 12:17 PM, Massimo Belgrano
> wrote:
>
>> Wich path allow GUI and WUI?
>>
>> 2009/3/16 Viktor Szakáts
>>
>>>
>>> For me this isn't a problem yet, since my app is still
both? probably none.
Brgds,
Viktor
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 12:17 PM, Massimo Belgrano wrote:
> Wich path allow GUI and WUI?
>
> 2009/3/16 Viktor Szakáts
>
>>
>> For me this isn't a problem yet, since my app is still CUI.
>>
>> The question is which way to choose to rewrite it _once_.
>> Options:
Wich path allow GUI and WUI?
2009/3/16 Viktor Szakáts
>
> For me this isn't a problem yet, since my app is still CUI.
>
> The question is which way to choose to rewrite it _once_.
> Options: GUI and WUI (web UI). For me a GUI is only an
> option if it's at least portable, and it's a plus if it's
Here are the results:
03/16/09 23:42:47 Windows XP 5.1.2600 Service Pack 3
Harbour 1.1.0dev (Rev. 10624) (MT)+ MinGW GNU C 4.3.2 (32-bit)
THREADS: 1
N_LOOPS: 100
[ T000: empty loop overhead ]...0.05
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009, Szak�ts Viktor wrote:
Hi,
> Oh, just one :) an old one, it's still a P4 2.6 / 800 with Hyperthreading.
> [ Last week I was checking the market, but I just don't feel
> like assembling yet another junk PC, so for now I keep waiting,
> maybe a new Mac Mini will be the answer wi
Oh, just one :) an old one, it's still a P4 2.6 / 800 with Hyperthreading.
[ Last week I was checking the market, but I just don't feel
like assembling yet another junk PC, so for now I keep waiting,
maybe a new Mac Mini will be the answer with native Linux
or OSX. Nothing has matured yet. For me p
>
> Hi agree with you but think that This is one side of the problem
> The other side is that rewriting each times that you change gui is wasting
> time
>
For me this isn't a problem yet, since my app is still CUI.
The question is which way to choose to rewrite it _once_.
Options: GUI and WUI (we
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009, Szak�ts Viktor wrote:
Hi,
> > But so far speedtst code has not been updated to test MT performance in
> > XPP builds so always is executed only once by one thread.
> > Such modification will be next the step.
> > Now only Harbour and xHarbour builds can use more then one thre
Hi agree with you but think that This is one side of the problem
The other side is that rewriting each times that you change gui is wasting
time
The right idea of gtwvg is that a unified class (compatible with xbase++
part) will allow change you with more little effert
So i hope that when somebody
Totally agree.
One problem with Windows API is that even porting to
WinCE is a huge pain (or even between compilers).
All that energy is IMO much better spent on GTK or QT.
The next big feature for a GUI is remote support, like
X Window. I'm not sure how QT shines here, but GTK
must support it som
In order
+1 for GTNET
+1 for Unicode.
+1 for NetRDD,
2009/3/16 Viktor Szakáts
>
>> :)
>
> Well, if we're at it: +1 for NetRDD, +1 for GTNET and +1 for Unicode.
> (in reverse order)
>
> Brgds,
> Viktor
>
>
> ___
> Harbour mailing list
> Harbour@harbour
Hi Angel
Thanks for explain us your Xbase++ developer POV.
Regarding GUI Have you tried Pritpal's harbour\contrib\gtwvg Xbase Part
compatible?Easy to switch from xbase++ and imo same test will be useful
regarding rdd In past Przemyslaw have announced idea about native client
server named netrdd
>
> Viktor also used HVM with MT support:
>Harbour 1.1.0dev (Rev. 10601) (MT)+ Microsoft Visual C 14.0.24999
> (32-bit)
>
> so this part is comparable. speedtst informs about possible MT support
> in above statement.
> But so far speedtst code has not been
>
> I'm not wanting to sound like a professional requester as Massimo is, just
> wanted to illustrate my humble Xbase++ developper POV.
:)
Well, if we're at it: +1 for NetRDD, +1 for GTNET and +1 for Unicode.
(in reverse order)
Brgds,
Viktor
___
Harbo
gt; *Sent:* Monday, March 16, 2009 9:21 PM
> *To:* Harbour Project Main Developer List.
> *Subject:* Re: [Harbour] Re: Question to xBase++ users
>
>
>
> with 2 threads (The Harbour results look this weird on every run):
>
>
>
> 03/16/2009 20:08:01 Windows XP 05.01
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009, Mike Evans (Gmail) wrote:
Hi,
> As far as I know Xbase++ is always executed in MT mode cause at least the GC
> is executed in a different Thread.
Viktor also used HVM with MT support:
Harbour 1.1.0dev (Rev. 10601) (MT)+ Microsoft Visual C 14.0.24999 (32-bit)
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009, Szak�ts Viktor wrote:
Hi,
Thank you for your results.
> with 2 threads (The Harbour results look this weird on every run):
> 03/16/2009 20:08:01 Windows XP 05.01 Build 02600 Service Pack 3
> Xbase++ (R) Version 1.90 (MT)+
> THREADS: 2
> N_LOOPS: 100
Do you modified spee
:21 PM
To: Harbour Project Main Developer List.
Subject: Re: [Harbour] Re: Question to xBase++ users
with 2 threads (The Harbour results look this weird on every run):
03/16/2009 20:08:01 Windows XP 05.01 Build 02600 Service Pack 3
Xbase++ (R) Version 1.90 (MT)+
THREADS: 2
N_LOOPS: 100
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009, Angel Pais wrote:
Hi,
> getting close !!
Fine and thanks.
> xpp /n /m /w /p /wi /wl @C:\DOCUME~1\ADMINI~1\CONFIG~1\Temp\03166601.tmp
> SPEEDTST3.PRG(197:0): warning XBT0121: STATIC variable s_once may not have
> been set before first use
[...]
Looks that they reports some
with 2 threads (The Harbour results look this weird on every run):
03/16/2009 20:08:01 Windows XP 05.01 Build 02600 Service Pack 3
Xbase++ (R) Version 1.90 (MT)+
THREADS: 2
N_LOOPS: 100
[ T000: empty loop overhead ]...0.03
To be fair with Harbour, here are the Harbour results repeated with -gc3
(XPP always uses such mode).
03/16/09 20:04:46 Windows XP 5.1.2600 Service Pack 3
Harbour 1.1.0dev (Rev. 10601) (MT) Microsoft Visual C 14.0.24999 (32-bit)
THREADS: 0
N_LOOPS: 100
[ T000: empty loop overhead ]
After fixing the HB_SYMBOL_UNUSED() issue in XPP and
making T017 equivalent to T016 (there is no array access of
objects in XPP), here are the results:
03/16/2009 19:56:03 Windows XP 05.01 Build 02600 Service Pack 3
Xbase++ (R) Version 1.90 (MT)
THREADS: 0
N_LOOPS: 100
[ T000: empty loop overh
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009, Angel Pais wrote:
> Still some errors left...
Thank you for test.
Now it's much better but new PP rules are still not executed like
in Clipper.
I'm attaching 3-rd version and against asking for tests.
best regards,
Przemek
/*
* $Id: speedtst.prg 10578 2009-03-10 11:17:18Z dr
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009, Angel Pais wrote:
Hi,
> Here you have attacched errors & ppo file.
> Too much preprocessor trick for me so I couldn`t even try to fix this code.
Thank you.
In few places xbase++ preprocessor is not Clipper compatible but it's not
our job to locate the exact problems.
I updat
25 matches
Mail list logo
