GZDoom 287-ga72b94e isn't what it is

Discuss the hosted development builds here.
[Home]

Moderator: Dev Builds Team

User avatar
Blue Shadow
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 304
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 6:09

GZDoom 287-ga72b94e isn't what it is

Post by Blue Shadow » Sat Oct 05, 2013 2:41

The file name of the package reads: "gzdoom-g1.8.1-287-ga72b94e", however the GZDoom executeable version from that package reads: "gzdoom-g1.8.1-285-g834678a", which is from the previous build.

User avatar
Kappes Buur
Persecution Complex
Posts: 176
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 4:30
Location: British Columbia

Re: GZDoom 287-ga72b94e isn't what it is

Post by Kappes Buur » Sat Oct 05, 2013 14:53

285 and 287
They are the exact same file size and generate the same MD5 hash.

285 --> DCE890B0EF96877263A11C51D8486B6C
287 --> DCE890B0EF96877263A11C51D8486B6C

So, I assume that 287 is just a copy of 285.

Blzut3
Developer
Developer
Posts: 372
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 22:21

Re: GZDoom 287-ga72b94e isn't what it is

Post by Blzut3 » Sat Oct 05, 2013 17:24

Apparently Graf decided to convert the project to VS 2008. This is a problem since my build VM only has 2005 and 2012 and I don't have a whole lot of space on the machine for yet another VS installation. I'll either have to make sure CMake is capable of generating a working VS project for GZDoom or end GZDoom nightly builds.

A note about VS versions, there basically no point in using 2008 or 2010 since 2012 is compatible with XP. 2008 technically will give you compatibility with WIndows 2000 as well, but I don't hear too many people complaining about that. All versions past 2005 drop 9x targeting support.

Blzut3
Developer
Developer
Posts: 372
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 22:21

Re: GZDoom 287-ga72b94e isn't what it is

Post by Blzut3 » Sat Oct 05, 2013 20:32

Double posting to say that build 288 is up and is built with Visual Studio 2012 vc110_xp + CMake. I have not tested the resulting binary though.

User avatar
Enjay
There is no dark side in the moon, really...
Developer
Developer
Posts: 4579
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2005 23:19
Location: Scotland
Contact:

Re: GZDoom 287-ga72b94e isn't what it is

Post by Enjay » Sat Oct 05, 2013 20:39

Seems to be working just fine.

Interesting side effect. The progress bar is now one of these:

Image

instead of one of these:

Image

on my Win7 64 bit machine anyway. I assume that this is expected behaviour.

User avatar
Blue Shadow
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 304
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 6:09

Re: GZDoom 287-ga72b94e isn't what it is

Post by Blue Shadow » Sun Oct 06, 2013 3:42

Hmm, it seems to crash with ZDCMP2 upon starting the map (not sure if this has to do with something that went wrong with the compiling process of the build, or a change in GZDoom).

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/o21 ... -_b015.pk3 (latest available build - it'll also crash with build b014, so if you already have that and you don't want to bother with downloading b015, try that instead)

Crash reports of both builds of the project:
CrashReport_b014.zip
CrashReport_b015.zip

User avatar
Kappes Buur
Persecution Complex
Posts: 176
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 4:30
Location: British Columbia

Re: GZDoom 287-ga72b94e isn't what it is

Post by Kappes Buur » Sun Oct 06, 2013 7:35

288 also crashes ....

.... when quitting Stronghold (strnghld_v1.pk3) by Tormentor
.... after selecting a difficulty setting in Paranoid (Paranoid.pk3) by Rex.

Unfortunately I cannot find the crash reports after I click on Save Report to Disk.

User avatar
Rachael
Developer
Developer
Posts: 3606
Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 10:30

Re: GZDoom 287-ga72b94e isn't what it is

Post by Rachael » Sun Oct 06, 2013 14:25

Blzut3 wrote: I'll either have to make sure CMake is capable of generating a working VS project for GZDoom or end GZDoom nightly builds.
Ending the nightly builds would be disappointing. Would it not be possible to use MinGW instead? Hell in that case you could probably just compile on the mac system itself natively with that, and the binaries should work just fine for Windows. Although that might make a problem with Graf being unable to use crash reports anymore.
Spoiler: Zen Sarcasm

User avatar
Tiger
Developer
Developer
Posts: 856
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 3:44
Location: United States

Re: GZDoom 287-ga72b94e isn't what it is

Post by Tiger » Sun Oct 06, 2013 19:31

Blzut3 wrote:Apparently Graf decided to convert the project to VS 2008. This is a problem since my build VM only has 2005 and 2012 and I don't have a whole lot of space on the machine for yet another VS installation.
Perhaps I am not getting the picture, but why not use Visual Studio 2012 (or even 2013, soon to be released)? Is it just because of compatibility with ancient Operating Systems?
Nicholas "Tiger" Gautier

Blzut3
Developer
Developer
Posts: 372
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 22:21

Re: GZDoom 287-ga72b94e isn't what it is

Post by Blzut3 » Sun Oct 06, 2013 19:49

Enjay wrote:Interesting side effect. The progress bar is now one of these:
This was CMake's doing. It's fixed now in the ZDoom repository.

As for the crashes. Hopefully Graf will come by this thread and comment if this is my problem or if the VS2008 builds do the same.
Eruanna wrote:Ending the nightly builds would be disappointing. Would it not be possible to use MinGW instead? Hell in that case you could probably just compile on the mac system itself natively with that, and the binaries should work just fine for Windows. Although that might make a problem with Graf being unable to use crash reports anymore.
Cross compilers are a pain to set up. :P I'm not sure if anyone uses MinGW to compile (G)ZDoom these days so it might not even compile anymore. Plus it will generate larger, slower binaries.

I've found out that CMake allows files to be grouped in project files, so I'm working on seeing if I can get the CMake path close enough to the hand made project file. This way we can support VS2005 and up without these kind of problems.
Tiger wrote:Perhaps I am not getting the picture, but why not use Visual Studio 2012 (or even 2013, soon to be released)? Is it just because of compatibility with ancient Operating Systems?
According to the commit log, Graf has a full version of VS2008. Over 2012/2013 the only OS you gain compatibility with is Windows 2000 which doesn't have nearly as strong of a following as Windows 98.

User avatar
Rachael
Developer
Developer
Posts: 3606
Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 10:30

Re: GZDoom 287-ga72b94e isn't what it is

Post by Rachael » Sun Oct 06, 2013 21:26

Who in the Doom community still uses Windows 98 as a primary operating system, anyway? I can understand 2000 but 98 is about as stable as a 200 year old airplane that has seen one too many dust storms and absolutely no maintenance.

At any rate, the minimum that anyone should be using is XP.
Spoiler: Zen Sarcasm

Blzut3
Developer
Developer
Posts: 372
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 22:21

Re: GZDoom 287-ga72b94e isn't what it is

Post by Blzut3 » Mon Oct 07, 2013 0:34

That argument only applies if we're talking primary computers. Some people, such as myself, have retro gaming rigs you know. ;) While it's irrelevant for GZDoom since I don't believe Graf supports GeForce 3/4/FX hardware, a high end Pentium 3 + GeForce 4 seems to be a fairly common build to play old DirectX games on Windows 98. (Geforce 6+ removed support for some feature and all ATI cards have issues with some DOS games like Commander Keen.) These machines are capable of running ZDoom or Zandronum, but they're not Internet browsing machines. Still good enough for an extra player in LAN games.

For Windows 2000, I'm not sure if there's a reason anyone would actually stick around on that OS compared to running XP. At least as far as gaming is concerned, whatever small system requirement difference there is, that retro machine would probably run more games on 9x than on 2000 due to not having to emulate DOS.

I'm not aware of a feature we're dying to use atm that isn't available on 9x. So it doesn't make sense to drop support for the sake of dropping support. The new compiler makes only a few fps difference on low resolutions. Unless we're looking to start using C++11 features, which would require VS2010+ anyhow. If ZDoom gets unicode support that'd be another reason to drop 9x support, but it's not looking like we're going there in the near future.

User avatar
Blue Shadow
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 304
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 6:09

Re: GZDoom 287-ga72b94e isn't what it is

Post by Blue Shadow » Mon Oct 07, 2013 2:17

Blzut3 wrote:As for the crashes. Hopefully Graf will come by this thread and comment if this is my problem or if the VS2008 builds do the same.
A crash has been repoted in GZDoom's bug forum while running the problematic build.

http://forum.drdteam.org/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=6186

User avatar
Graf Zahl
GZDoom Developer
GZDoom Developer
Posts: 7148
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 9:48
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: GZDoom 287-ga72b94e isn't what it is

Post by Graf Zahl » Mon Oct 07, 2013 11:22

Blzut3 wrote: A note about VS versions, there basically no point in using 2008 or 2010 since 2012 is compatible with XP. 2008 technically will give you compatibility with WIndows 2000 as well, but I don't hear too many people complaining about that. All versions past 2005 drop 9x targeting support.

That's not quite true. You need Windows 8 to run the 2012 compiler, as stupid as it is. I'd like to switch over to 2010 but I'm having problems getting the project to convert so unless I manage, it'll remain on 2008. Sadly, the 2008 version is rather buggy but it's still better than the constant fight I have with 2005. For some reason it just doesn't want to play nice with my system so I just gave up and switched compilers.

Tiger wrote: Perhaps I am not getting the picture, but why not use Visual Studio 2012 (or even 2013, soon to be released)? Is it just because of compatibility with ancient Operating Systems?

No, it's because I do not have Windows 8 (outside of a VM for Windows Phone development) and I'm not particularly interested in screwing up a well working computer by installing a broken OS.

Blzut3 wrote:That argument only applies if we're talking primary computers. Some people, such as myself, have retro gaming rigs you know. ;) While it's irrelevant for GZDoom since I don't believe Graf supports GeForce 3/4/FX hardware, a high end Pentium 3 + GeForce 4 seems to be a fairly common build to play old DirectX games on Windows 98. (Geforce 6+ removed support for some feature and all ATI cards have issues with some DOS games like Commander Keen.) These machines are capable of running ZDoom or Zandronum, but they're not Internet browsing machines. Still good enough for an extra player in LAN games.
I don't think there is anything preventing GZDoom from running on such old hardware - but it's clearly not an intended target. If it wasn't for the shitload of Intel GMA based systems I'd have already scrapped all pre 3.x GL support by now because it's a major pain in the ass to keep all that compatibility crap in.
So while I won't intentionally break it, don't expect me to invest any time in that old code.

(At least I'm not like the Doomsday devs who probably killed off half of their user base when ditching XP for some questionable 'convenience'. :P)

Blzut3
Developer
Developer
Posts: 372
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 22:21

Re: GZDoom 287-ga72b94e isn't what it is

Post by Blzut3 » Mon Oct 07, 2013 13:18

Graf Zahl wrote:That's not quite true. You need Windows 8 to run the 2012 compiler
What? Visual Studio 2012 runs fine on Windows 7/Windows Server 2008R2. As far as I can tell the requirements for VS2013 will be the same.

Post Reply

Return to “Development Builds”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest