PureBasic Forums - English

I have found the culprit.

My procedure ChooseNode was defined with a return value of type .l by accident. Should of course be .i

Still wondrous that it has worked on older PB x64 versions. Maybe the XML library wasn't x64 until recently?

Anyhow, thanks for Your input, guys. Back to bean stringing ...

Yes, tried purifier. No diff. Just 'Invalid memory access - address xxxxxxxxxxx'

Ah, okay. Now I have checked this and apparently my home computer that has both x86 and x64 versions, compiled this code with the x86 version. That's why it worked at home.

So, now PB6.10 x64 and 6.11 x64 doesn't work with *any* copy of my code on *any* computer. At least it's consistent now. :)

I ...

Okay, now I have made some more tests.

At first, when I compiled and ran the source code here at home, everything worked just fine with PB6.10... :?:

I then ran the copy that I've got in another location that I share with my work computer - and it crashed in the same way as yesterday...

Now I ...

Hi guys,
before I'm diving in to boil down my code to get the exact code that fails, I'd like to ask if anyone of You have encountered problems with the XML file library on PB versions higher than 6.04?

The fifth line from the bottom in my code below fails hard every time - like if the nodes would ...

Take a look on the museum and download PB 2.00 to see all the way we went during this journey :). May be safer to install in a VM 8)


I remember well how excited I was when I bought PureBasic for my Amiga in 1999 or if it was 2000, I was so impressed and I had such big hopes that it would be ...

Thanks for Your hard work!

I'm amazed of how well the C backend works!

Sitting on project with some pretty hairy structures and lists weaved into each other so I will probably wait before I try the new update.

Updated source as if anyone would be interested in this simple code :P
(I made a last minute update before uploading the first code, which made it not to behave the same as the output I posted on the top).
Now it should behave the same and I took Little Johns advice to make a "wrapper" instead ...

no offense.
I personally prefer to make a task as simple and short as possible. (And always to do without modules.)

Non taken. You were told to feel free to comment. :wink:

I was actually quite reluctant to Modules until a couple of years ago. But now when I know how they behave, I write no ...

Little John wrote: Sat Sep 10, 2022 1:45 pm
I'd write two "wrapper" functions and declare them in the public module part like so

That will actually be a good idea. Thx! Not used to use procedures as pointers, so this module was more or less a little education for me.

Comments to the timer resolution.
It depends on each and every machine. My current machine has a resolution of 10 million. My old machine a bit under that... and so on... The module should calculate the values to nanoSeconds (a billionth of a second) but that doesn't mean the hardware has that ...

Hi all!
Doing some experimenting with a timer module that I want to use in some of my programs.

As it is now, I use prototypes to be able to call the correct function depending on if the target machine has a high resolution timer available or not. The drawback with this approach is that if I forget ...

Yes. And the parameters have to be exact the same as in the procedure.

Just out of curiosity: What speaks against declaring the procedures before the main code? My codes look like
- EnableExplicit
- Use xxx -commands
- Enumerations
- Structures
- declaration of variables
- XIncludes ...

Thanks a lot for this thread.

It made me realize I haven't been using the C backend yet... :D

I had a vague feeling it wasn't using it but I both didn't know how to change it in the IDE and hadn't put the time in it to be sure and find out.

So, I guess it's was a smart choice to not make the C ...

@Andre:

I actually solved it with the same trick but my extra structured element was in upper case. (much better, don't you think? )
It was when I recently returned to this code, I came to remember this little snag.

Thanks for your input!