@thellier

Well, you'll be happy to learn I've been reviewing the main library tonight and have a debug build that addresses several of the bugs you have highlighted in this thread and one or two others that have crept up too.

I need to run it through a battery of tests next and see how it behaves, that'll probably have to wait until the weekend. Busy days ahead at work :(

Last edited by Karlos on 23-Jun-2011 at 12:02 AM.

_________________
Doing stupid things for fun...

@Karlos

This is the best news of the year Thanks a lot.

Hope this work will resolve, at the same time, some problems (maybe) you maybe have with your driver too.

Don't hesitate to talk with others people with warp3D knowledges like kas1e or thellier

We should open a new thread specially for warp3D, IMHO.

Last edited by Mrodfr on 23-Jun-2011 at 05:11 AM.
Last edited by Mrodfr on 23-Jun-2011 at 05:10 AM.

_________________
BTW, what you have done for the amiga today ????

-A1200+Mediator+VooDoo3+060/50+96mo+SCSI-KIT
-SAM440EP-667mhz-on MapowerKC3000+AOS4.1

Amiga Docs Disks Preservation Project

@Karlos
Quote:

Well, you'll be happy to learn I've been reviewing the main library tonight and have a debug build that addresses several of the bugs you have highlighted in this thread and one or two others that have crept up too.

That very good newses ! But i fear there is no luck to have those fixes in update3 ? Or you already submit them to update3-test release ?

_________________
Join us to improve dopus5!
zerohero's mirror of os4/os3 crosscompiler suites

@HammerD

Thanks. Just registred. Finally, official support forum.

Hyperion improves itself beside OS

_________________
Future Acube and MOS supporter, fi di good, nothing fi di unprofessionals. Learn it harder way!

@kas1e
Quote:

But i fear there is no luck to have those fixes in update3 ?

That will be my decision in the end since I'm in charge of the update.

_________________
ExecSG Team Lead

@ssolie

Quote:

That will be my decision in the end since I'm in charge of the update.

Hope you will do all the best then :) Sure will be cool to have as many as possible fixes in update3.

Btw, did you know for now, update3 will be latest update before aos4.2 ? Or for now not everything clear with that ?

_________________
Join us to improve dopus5!
zerohero's mirror of os4/os3 crosscompiler suites

@thread

New blog entry by Hans-Jörg Frieden

#6

_________________
This posting, in its entirety, represents solely the perspective of the author.
*Secrecy has served us so well*

@number6

That was really nice post on blog. Classic developing topic, without any kind of fanboism, with pluses and minuses about shared libs and shared objects, and the right and normal final words about.

While everyone cry all the time "aos4 start to use sobjest not libs", its cleary that its all up to programmer to choice, and to make choice right.

_________________
Join us to improve dopus5!
zerohero's mirror of os4/os3 crosscompiler suites

@number6

Nice article. Very clear, worth a read.

Thank you Hans

_________________
retired

@number6
Yes, already read it, very nice balanced article. Even if I already knew most of it

_________________
Author of the PortablE programming language.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue...

i didnt know the blog turns into general guide into programming. can hardly bother to read it all, but what seems to remain os4 related out of this all seems only the conclusion the shared objects are not very well implemented here, because they are not exactly shared anymore. and generally said, thir usage is restricted to userland applications. so as tey do not look like a native system library implementation, they look even more like a quick hack, just to have less work porting.
well, just my unqualified observation.

@wawa

Quote:

seems only the conclusion the shared objects are not very well implemented here, because they are not exactly shared anymore

I think it just isnt possible share dynamically linked objects.

_________________
Amiga Developer
Amiga 500, Efika, Mac Mini and PowerBook

@wawa
Quote:

i didnt know the blog turns into general guide into programming

Every post are bad , does not matter about , because its unpossible pleasant everyone, but i personally pleased by such posts. That kind of posts much better in compare with "master of domains" , or "you can buy classic now!". Its something more interesting (for me). But yeah, maybe they should put it to "developer topics".

Quote:

because they are not exactly shared anymore

And they was never shared on aos4 :) And no one say that before, its just they called "so" (shared objects), and calling sobjes on amiga "lib.nrso" (not-really-shared-object) will be a bit messy.

Sure, current implementation not perfect, that why rogue say "currently" shared objects on amigaos not really shared (maybe someday they will do something to make them shared). And of course better to have really shared shared objects, but, in end of all, its indeed done for better and easy porting, not for something which will compiltely replace classic amigaos libraries. Its easy for ports, its give ability to use plugins (and just compile them 1:1 as it on linux). As example : Blender use plugins (.so), LodePaint use plugins (.so as well) and QT port based on .so as well. Without , there will be tons of uninteresting and monotonue work to support classic libs , and even in some case it will be just unpossible to do. And for what need to worry about it at all, if .so support are done ? For making someone happy that "we not use aliens so ?" :)

Quote:

so as tey do not look like a native system library implementation, they look even more like a quick hack, just to have less work porting.

And it was done for that. Of course it can't be called "quick hack", because even for current implementation its all not very easy to implement, but when they will really shared, and when version numbering will be added , it will be just the same as classic amiga libs 1:1. And of course, no one force programmer to use sobjs if he did't want. Let's he worring and rewriting everything (but of course in end, it will be forced just "sorry i have no time to implement .library support". And .so are helpfull here, and few apps with plugins which have only aos4 are pretty fine example of that.

But of course, they should be really shared and have version numbers. While linux realisation not have it, still, will be cool to add it in aos4 implementation to make it better than on linux.

Last edited by kas1e on 30-Jun-2011 at 12:54 PM.

_________________
Join us to improve dopus5!
zerohero's mirror of os4/os3 crosscompiler suites

@kas1e

no, not every post is bad. but this particular reminds me of the late gallium roadmap post. a lot of general theory, about to no factual essential information for interested or customers. its nice people like karlos posting about their work on os4, although i didnt read his post either (too much technical stuff as for me) and the current post fits in a similar cathegory alright. though i would expect something more essential to hear from a real insider.

@wawa

"quick hack"? Do you have any idea what you're talking about? You're calling the fundamental way Unix/Linux systems behave with regards to sharing subroutines a "quick hack"?

Nice attempt to dig up some crap, but in my point of view, egg on your face.

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

@itix
Quote:

I think it just isnt possible share dynamically linked objects.

I am not deep in it, but as unix/linux do, so why not. Of course with some workorounds as usuall , but imho pretty possible.

_________________
Join us to improve dopus5!
zerohero's mirror of os4/os3 crosscompiler suites

@olegil

i think its clear that im not talking about so on linux, where it comes from, but rather on os4, where it looks like a foreign implant given the restrictions of the current implementation. same as if .dlls were introduced to os4 i wouldnt be talking here about if they make sense on windows.

Last edited by wawa on 30-Jun-2011 at 01:58 PM.
Last edited by wawa on 30-Jun-2011 at 01:56 PM.

@wawa

Quote:

wawa wrote: unqualified observation.

Well OK. I'll give you 3 points.
Your uncalled-for post was a 'pretty' good kick in the teeth, but it lacked real power,
so 3 points is being generous.

@wawa Quote:

on os4, where it looks like a foreign implant given the restrictions of the current implementation.

Apparently you didn't real the article properly, because the whole point is that Shared Objects are intentionally a "foreign implant". One which is extremely useful for porting software, but also happens to have some other uses (such as an easy way to implement plugins).

I agree with olegil: "Nice attempt to dig up some crap, but in my point of view, egg on your face."

P.S. No doubt Shared Objects will get improved at some point, but as they stand they are already extremely useful. You can moan all you want, but I think "usefulness" beats any "but it's not perfect (yet)" objections. If you don't like SOs then simply avoid any software that uses them... which would be the same result as if they had not released SOs at all (since SOs are generally only used where the alternative is too hard to contemplate, and thus that software would not be available in the first place).

Quote:

well, just my unqualified observation.

Yup, just append that to every FUD post, and you are home free! (/sarc)

Last edited by ChrisH on 30-Jun-2011 at 05:17 PM.

_________________
Author of the PortablE programming language.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue...

ok, guys. i have already admitted not to read this through. i wonder, if there was some answer to such a question:
if a so. library has to be loaded separately for every application, then what the hell is the reason not to link this library statically at compile time, if the application in question is proven working well with available library version? you avoid the so called .so hell of version bugs and incompatibilities for the price of some extra room on a hard disk, that costs nothing today. there is no advantage in loading time against statically linked apps for what i know. and if an application isnt working well with a current version of library which is expected to be fixed in future then it shouldnt be released yet, right?
im just a little puzzled, what is the real advantage of .so against link libraries.