#21  
Old 16th January 2015, 04:26 AM
RPGMaster's Avatar
RPGMaster RPGMaster is offline
Alpha Tester
Project Supporter
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,972
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zilmar View Post
Yes removed the old ad code but did not remove the binary, sorry.
np.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zilmar View Post
the dependency was just if I updated the plugin and then run the binary I wanted it to build those libraries. So it is just to force the compiler to build it.
Makes sense. It was weird how out of nowhere, i couldn't debug PJ64.exe with MSVC anymore, even though I was able to build it. I'll have to become more familiar with MSVC project options. Wouldn't have been a problem if I could compile PJGlide64. After removing the dependency, I was able to debug.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zilmar View Post
well technically it is jabo's compiler, I did the interrupter and the re compiler was partly based off my r4300 compiler, but most of the compiler in the RSP is jabo's work.
Oh ok. Wasn't sure how much, each of you did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zilmar View Post
I mostly just focused on making the RSP interrupter as accurate as possible.

Since at the time we mostly just focused on audio though the rsp it was maybe not the most efficient re compiler. I am sure there is lots of things to make it even faster.
Ya I could tell audio was the primary focus. Aside from implementing all the incomplete instructions, vectorizing the flags & accumulators, upgrading to SSE2, and adding more game specific & opcode optimizations, make a huge difference.

I can help speed up the recompiler some more, but I hope to fix some of the bugs I've encountered first.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zilmar View Post
Looks like WTL should be upgraded to version 9 for proper support in Visual studio 2013
Good to hear . I honestly couldn't find a solution when googling.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 16th January 2015, 12:40 PM
Predator82 Predator82 is offline
Alpha Tester
Project Supporter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 134
Default

Comes a alpha/beta with the new things?
__________________
30.11.13 R.I.P Paul Walker
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 19th January 2015, 04:05 AM
HatCat's Avatar
HatCat HatCat is offline
Alpha Tester
Project Supporter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: In my hat.
Posts: 16,237
Default

zilmar can you explain the purpose of the VS2010 makefile project in the repository?
Should it just be removed or were you planning on having something complex done later for it to work?

I was trying to get it to work in the manner shown in this commit I did in a fork:
https://github.com/cxd4/project64/co...9ae911e6d6addf

I was hoping this would fix the errors in Visual Studio 2010...it did, but it just recognizes it as a project that "needs to be converted". So I go through the conversion wizard, finish the conversion, close, re-open VS2010, re-open the file I just converted...it recursively says once again that it needs to be converted even though the converted .vcxproj files are already there.

So I guess getting it to work isn't that simple. Were you planning on having the genuine .vcxproj file counterparts to your .vcproj files in the future of the repo, or do you think the availability of the MSVC 2010 project is misleading, no different than the config in the 2008 one and should just be removed?
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 19th January 2015, 04:39 AM
oddMLan's Avatar
oddMLan oddMLan is offline
Alpha Tester
Project Supporter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Parappa Town
Posts: 210
Default

Did Visual Studio 2010 generate a new .sln file after conversion? Maybe is still using the old .vcproj references you changed in first place, creating the "needs to be converted" loop.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 19th January 2015, 10:59 AM
Tarek701's Avatar
Tarek701 Tarek701 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 58
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HatCat View Post
zilmar can you explain the purpose of the VS2010 makefile project in the repository?
Should it just be removed or were you planning on having something complex done later for it to work?

I was trying to get it to work in the manner shown in this commit I did in a fork:
https://github.com/cxd4/project64/co...9ae911e6d6addf

I was hoping this would fix the errors in Visual Studio 2010...it did, but it just recognizes it as a project that "needs to be converted". So I go through the conversion wizard, finish the conversion, close, re-open VS2010, re-open the file I just converted...it recursively says once again that it needs to be converted even though the converted .vcxproj files are already there.

So I guess getting it to work isn't that simple. Were you planning on having the genuine .vcxproj file counterparts to your .vcproj files in the future of the repo, or do you think the availability of the MSVC 2010 project is misleading, no different than the config in the 2008 one and should just be removed?
Well, I never used the VS2010 solution. When I did, it gave me billions of errors in VS2010. So, I always used the vs2008 solution on Visual Studio 2010 and it always worked.
__________________
==========================
Familiar with MIPS r4300i ASM, Basic stuff in C.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 19th January 2015, 02:40 PM
HatCat's Avatar
HatCat HatCat is offline
Alpha Tester
Project Supporter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: In my hat.
Posts: 16,237
Default

If nobody was able to get the VS2010 file working, then its presence only wastes peoples' time redundantly.

It should either be removed or zilmar should explain how it can be fixed. Otherwise it's there for impressions and just makes things hard.

I don't even have VS2008 anymore, or know how to get it. oddMLan no it created no new files/SLN other than vcxproj's.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 19th January 2015, 04:18 PM
=X= Smasherx74 =X= =X= Smasherx74 =X= is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 132
Default

I have only looked through the main part of the source and I'm wondering if this is still 2.0 or if it has the 2.1 updates. I know the source says from 2 years ago, but that source was taken right after it got published, and now it's back again so I can only assume it has the newest faulty modifications you made right?

I wish the community would bash zilmar a little bit more, he really deserves it.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 19th January 2015, 04:52 PM
HatCat's Avatar
HatCat HatCat is offline
Alpha Tester
Project Supporter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: In my hat.
Posts: 16,237
Default

It's the latest source I think so yeah, 2.1 whatever.
And there are rumors of 1.7 source but until anyone even sees an example that's just a marketing claim.

I don't care about bashing him and I don't care about asking nicely. Right now I only want to know if we should give up on the VS2010 makefile and find some method of obtaining VS2008 or if there was some planned method of fixing it--or else why would it still be in the repo?
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 19th January 2015, 06:56 PM
RPGMaster's Avatar
RPGMaster RPGMaster is offline
Alpha Tester
Project Supporter
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,972
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by =X= Smasherx74 =X= View Post
I have only looked through the main part of the source and I'm wondering if this is still 2.0 or if it has the 2.1 updates. I know the source says from 2 years ago, but that source was taken right after it got published, and now it's back again so I can only assume it has the newest faulty modifications you made right?

I wish the community would bash zilmar a little bit more, he really deserves it.
The source is the latest version. For what reason should the community bash zilmar?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HatCat View Post
It's the latest source I think so yeah, 2.1 whatever.
And there are rumors of 1.7 source but until anyone even sees an example that's just a marketing claim.

I don't care about bashing him and I don't care about asking nicely. Right now I only want to know if we should give up on the VS2010 makefile and find some method of obtaining VS2008 or if there was some planned method of fixing it--or else why would it still be in the repo?
While it's true that the 2010 makefile is a waste of time, you can convert the 2008 makefile to 2010. Still can't use 2013, until zilmar upgrades stuff like WTL.

Well the source for 1.7 certainly exists, but I've never successfully compiled a working version. I might need to use 2008 just to get the version I want, to compile ;/ . I honestly only care about it for the debugger, and possibly other neat features.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 19th January 2015, 07:48 PM
HatCat's Avatar
HatCat HatCat is offline
Alpha Tester
Project Supporter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: In my hat.
Posts: 16,237
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RPGMaster View Post
While it's true that the 2010 makefile is a waste of time, you can convert the 2008 makefile to 2010. Still can't use 2013, until zilmar upgrades stuff like WTL.
I pose no claim that the 2010 makefile is a waste of time; I'm asking if it's a waste of time.

You may agree with me on the possibility that it is, but it's not possible to make a pull request removing the 2010 makefile if zilmar doesn't think it's a waste of time, and it's not possible to make a pull request fixing the 2010 makefile to work if zilmar DOES think it's a waste of time. I just want to know why keep it in the repository--should we be fixing it, or removing it?

I'm not worried about 2013; I have VS2010 still installed and can just use that.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.