PureBasic 6.00 released !

[RichAlgeni]

An other reason to implement more network stuff instead of 3D stuff.

Agreed. I understand others will use the 3D capabilities. But network extensions would interest me much more.

[RichAlgeni]

Thank being said, the fact that Raspberry Pi is now included blows my mind! I love it!

[marcoagpinto]

@Fred

Could you add the possibility to use -o3 (optimise level 3) in GCC?

Thanks!

[Joris]

A Big Thanks Fred and the PB Team.

[mk-soft]

I upgraded my PI 4 today to Raspberry Pi OS (64bit) with desktop.

Installed all required packages according to Simple install of PureBasic. Unpacked PureBasic for Linux Arm64 and started it.
Tested some projects.

It runs

Many thanks to the PB-Team

[Tenaja]

Many thanks to the PB-Team

+1

[dige]

A great step forward! Thx PB-Team!

[box_80]

Thanks PB Team!!

[Cyllceaux]

Oh... I hate the gcc... everytime you want to do something cool, you see: "Oh, it is in an other version of the gcc"
the mingw-gcc is from 2018 and the modernst CPU in this build is then Zen1 from 2017. Yes, it is a windows-Problem and Yes I can recompile it for windows, too.

So, I mostly use this for Windows. And it work for PB, too.
https://sourceforge.net/projects/gcc-win64/

So, I changed this project: https://www.purebasic.fr/english/viewtopic.php?t=78558
And added a new parameter, So I can do this:

Code: Select all

CompilerIf #PB_Compiler_Backend=#PB_Backend_C
	!//gccflags -mtune=znver3 -march=znver3 ;
	!//gccpath C:\Users\Silko Pillasch\Downloads\gcc11\bin\gcc.exe ;
CompilerEndIf

And yes... PB works fine in gcc-11.1

And a fun thing...

My encryption tool encodes for a 1 GB File:
fasm: 11768ms
gcc8: 12998ms
gcc11: 11889ms
gcc11 with parameter: 6221ms

[Psychophanta]

To me is hard to say it, but MS C++ is the most advanced one everytime. 'gcc' is garbage at his side.

[Cyllceaux]

To me is hard to say it, but MS C++ is the most advanced one everytime. 'gcc' is garbage at his side.

Long time ago, intel and IBM had the most advanced compiler. There were sometimes Performanceboosts up to 80%... But now... I don't know which one is the best.

I like the lcc and the tcc... small, fast but a little bit outdated.

[nsstudios]

Code: Select all

- Changed the way the map elements are created when using passive syntax, to be more consistent. There is no more a dummy element.

What does this mean?
I thought it was a fix for

Code: Select all

NewMap m()
If m("test")=5: EndIf
Debug MapSize(m()); 1

?
Thank you for the updates, some nice stuff for sure!

[STARGÅTE]

Code: Select all

- Changed the way the map elements are created when using passive syntax, to be more consistent. There is no more a dummy element.

What does this mean?
I thought it was a fix for

Code: Select all

NewMap m()
If m("test")=5: EndIf
Debug MapSize(m()); 1

?
Thank you for the updates, some nice stuff for sure!

Now, a map element (used in a comparison or calculation) is allways created. Before, sometimes dummy elements were used for this and the element was not created.
See my example from last year: Map access should not always result in creation of element
So now, the access on a map element always result in creation of this element.

[nsstudios]

Thanks for explaining!
I was really hoping it would be fixed to only work when assigning a value to it.

Code: Select all

- Changed the way the map elements are created when using passive syntax, to be more consistent. There is no more a dummy element.

What does this mean?
I thought it was a fix for

Code: Select all

NewMap m()
If m("test")=5: EndIf
Debug MapSize(m()); 1

?
Thank you for the updates, some nice stuff for sure!

Now, a map element (used in a comparison or calculation) is allways created. Before, sometimes dummy elements were used for this and the element was not created.
See my example from last year: Map access should not always result in creation of element
So now, the access on a map element always result in creation of this element.

[User_Russian]

What's this? Why inactive? I can't clean the check mark. Is it a bug?