Nash's SVN builds - DISCONTINUED.

Archive of the old editing forum
Forum rules
Before asking on how to use a ZDoom feature, read the ZDoom wiki first. This forum is archived - please use this set of forums to ask new questions.
User avatar
Rachael
Posts: 13595
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 1:31 pm
Preferred Pronouns: She/Her

Re: Nash's SVN builds - an alternative custom build source

Post by Rachael »

Quasar wrote:I have committed a new revision which uses LoadLibrary and GetProcAddress to access the PathRemoveFIleSpecA function, after reading that this *might* resolve the issue on a Novell webpage. If you could try recompiling it now (do a completely fresh build to avoid any linker issues), and let me know if this has an effect, I'd appreciate it.

This is due to what could be considered a fatal design flaw in IE7 which causes shlwapi to have a dependency on the Vista-only delayed loading manager. People have been complaining about this on MSDN vehemently and MS in typical fashion refuses to respond.
It's still linking to that DLL file. I can't diagnose it at the moment, but can look into it when I get home from work.
User avatar
Kinsie
Posts: 7402
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 9:22 am
Graphics Processor: nVidia with Vulkan support
Location: MAP33

Re: Nash's SVN builds - DISCONTINUED.

Post by Kinsie »

So... where's the new SVN builds site?
User avatar
MasterOFDeath
... in rememberance ...
Posts: 2024
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 10:58 am

Re: Nash's SVN builds - DISCONTINUED.

Post by MasterOFDeath »

Kinsie wrote:So... where's the new SVN builds site?
http://svn.drdteam.org/
User avatar
Graf Zahl
Lead GZDoom+Raze Developer
Lead GZDoom+Raze Developer
Posts: 49090
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 10:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Nash's SVN builds - an alternative custom build source

Post by Graf Zahl »

Quasar wrote:... PathRemoveFIleSpecA ...

Why do you even use this function? Does it offer anything that a home made version doesn't (except for being non-portable?) This is precisely the stuff I would never use an OS supplied function for.
User avatar
Enjay
 
 
Posts: 26535
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2003 4:58 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: Nash's SVN builds - DISCONTINUED.

Post by Enjay »

Kinsie wrote:So... where's the new SVN builds site?
Also linked from the Wiki front page, as Nash's builds are.

[edit] Correction, as Nash's builds were. I see that someone has already removed the link. BTW, I'm just building GZdoom r176 and Zdoom r1222. However, both look as if they will report themselves as 1 version older because the only change between 175 and 176 and 1221 and 1222 seems to be a minor edit to the pk3. [/edit]
User avatar
Graf Zahl
Lead GZDoom+Raze Developer
Lead GZDoom+Raze Developer
Posts: 49090
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 10:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Nash's SVN builds - DISCONTINUED.

Post by Graf Zahl »

GZDoom r176 is the same as r175. The changes were outside the trunk.
User avatar
Enjay
 
 
Posts: 26535
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2003 4:58 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: Nash's SVN builds - DISCONTINUED.

Post by Enjay »

That explains it. I've just compiled, cleaned, recompiled, redownloaded and recompiled to make sure that it wasn't a problem at my end. :roll:
User avatar
Enjay
 
 
Posts: 26535
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2003 4:58 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: Nash's SVN builds - DISCONTINUED.

Post by Enjay »

I see that you've just updated Zdoom to r1223. Should I hold off uploading Gzdoom r176 or will you not be making the change to GZdoom soon?
User avatar
Graf Zahl
Lead GZDoom+Raze Developer
Lead GZDoom+Raze Developer
Posts: 49090
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 10:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Nash's SVN builds - DISCONTINUED.

Post by Graf Zahl »

Don't bother with r176. r177 has just been committed.
User avatar
Enjay
 
 
Posts: 26535
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2003 4:58 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: Nash's SVN builds - DISCONTINUED.

Post by Enjay »

And here I am uploading r176 as we speak. And I thought Tormentor was Mr Impatience. :lol: I'll cancel it. Thanks.
Quasar
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 4:06 pm
Location: Oklahoma

Re: Nash's SVN builds - an alternative custom build source

Post by Quasar »

Graf Zahl wrote:
Quasar wrote:... PathRemoveFIleSpecA ...

Why do you even use this function? Does it offer anything that a home made version doesn't (except for being non-portable?) This is precisely the stuff I would never use an OS supplied function for.
Actually I'm not sure why I was so set on using it. It was used that way in the example code I found for retrieving the full path of an executable, and that's why it was there in the first place. I have now replaced it with a call to my own generic M_GetFilePath routine, avoiding the silly mess with LoadLibrary. Keep in mind however that the code in question here is in a Win32-only module, so portability was *not* one of the concerns. It already has to call GetModuleFileName, which is not avoidable AFAIK. WinXP and later strip the path off the executable name in argv[0].

Return to “Editing (Archive)”