R: [Harbour] OLE Implementation - xHarbour Compatibility

2008-02-10 Thread Massimo Belgrano
-Messaggio originale- >Da: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Per >conto di Przemyslaw Czerpak >Inviato: domenica 10 febbraio 2008 14.17 >But please remember that this code inherited very serious problem >from xHarbour. If you are using BCC then it will need -a8 alignment >for OLE

Re: R: [Harbour] OLE Implementation - xHarbour Compatibility

2008-02-11 Thread Saulius Zrelskis
Enrico, Thank you for sample. As expected, your code works well here. Now trying to squeeze a GPF without success. The only one change made in xharbour\makefile.bc from -a8 to -a4 Best regards, Saulius ___ Harbour mailing list Harbour@harbour-project.or

Re: R: [Harbour] OLE Implementation - xHarbour Compatibility

2008-02-11 Thread Saulius Zrelskis
Very useful reading, thank you, Przemek. It needs deeper tests done, I am extremely interested to assist. Enrico, have you code, which GPFs with -a4 ? Have to mention, that before building xHarbour binaries I always search for "-a8" and replacing with "-a4" (there are about ten places in sources)

Re: R: [Harbour] OLE Implementation - xHarbour Compatibility

2008-02-11 Thread Saulius Zrelskis
Hello, Przemek I always compiling xHarbour with BCC -a4 alignment; sizeof(HB_ITEM) = 24 and memory(HB_MEM_STACK) / memory(HB_MEM_STACKITEMS) = 24. But never noticed any anomaly in OLE work. Can you help me how to make sure with this?? Till now I think, that it is enough for OLE structures to be co

Re: R: [Harbour] OLE Implementation - xHarbour Compatibility

2008-02-11 Thread Enrico Maria Giordano
-Messaggio Originale- Da: "Saulius Zrelskis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> A: "Harbour Project Main Developer List." Data invio: lunedì 11 febbraio 2008 14.55 Oggetto: Re: R: [Harbour] OLE Implementation - xHarbour Compatibility Enrico, have you code, which GP

Re: R: [Harbour] OLE Implementation - xHarbour Compatibility

2008-02-11 Thread Przemyslaw Czerpak
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008, Saulius Zrelskis wrote: > I always compiling xHarbour with BCC -a4 alignment; sizeof(HB_ITEM) = 24 > and memory(HB_MEM_STACK) / memory(HB_MEM_STACKITEMS) = 24. > But never noticed any anomaly in OLE work. Can you help me how to make > sure with this?? Till now I think, that it

Re: R: [Harbour] OLE Implementation - xHarbour Compatibility

2008-02-11 Thread Mindaugas Kavaliauskas
Saulius Zrelskis wrote: OLE include files have their suitable #pragma option directives with restoring _all_ initial settings, so different alignment seems as if provided by compiler... Hi, I also have a question similar to Saulius. Do you know what structures needs some specific alignment?

Re: R: [Harbour] OLE Implementation - xHarbour Compatibility

2008-02-13 Thread Saulius Zrelskis
Hello Enrico, My tests with BCC 5.5 & 5.8 shows, that alignment switches -a4 and -a8 have not any influence in xHarbour work. IMHO Przemek is pointed to wrong direction and he cannot test M$ branch, so can you do one more test with your example, maybe with slightly supplement ? OS(), Version()

Re: R: [Harbour] OLE Implementation - xHarbour Compatibility

2008-02-13 Thread Enrico Maria Giordano
-Messaggio Originale- Da: "Saulius Zrelskis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> A: "Harbour Project Main Developer List." Data invio: mercoledì 13 febbraio 2008 9.30 Oggetto: Re: R: [Harbour] OLE Implementation - xHarbour Compatibility Hello Enrico, My tests with

Re: R: [Harbour] OLE Implementation - xHarbour Compatibility

2008-02-13 Thread Saulius Zrelskis
Hello Enrico, > My tests with BCC 5.5 & 5.8 shows, that alignment switches > > -a4 and -a8 have not any influence in xHarbour work. > > > Please read the old messages about this problem in this list. > > > EMG > > what you meant? Saulius ___ Harbour ma

Re: R: [Harbour] OLE Implementation - xHarbour Compatibility

2008-02-13 Thread Enrico Maria Giordano
-Messaggio Originale- Da: "Saulius Zrelskis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> A: "Harbour Project Main Developer List." Data invio: mercoledì 13 febbraio 2008 14.53 Oggetto: Re: R: [Harbour] OLE Implementation - xHarbour Compatibility > Please read the old messag