Allegro pull requests

[ZoriaRPG]

Well, the edit post button seems to be failing. I'll post a P.S. about that below.

Here is a link to the discussion on this topic over at allegro.cc. Mates, you might want to chime in over there.
@War Lord & @DarkDragon

I have encountered some issues on AGN today, and yesterday. The edit post button seems to fail to load the edit dialogue, and on two occasions I received an error:

You do not have permission to accesss /newreply.php on this server.

I'm posting this here, in the event that I run into it again. I'm hoping that this post goes through.

[Gleeok]

I was just going to copy over some atomic code from my own library I use and use that to fix it, but if you guys want to do it then be my guest.

I'm not really sure how to make this an atomic operation that is respected in each of our various compilers, and on every architecture that we use. I think it would be different between gcc/MinGW, and MSVC, and possibly between different MSVC versions; plus it may be different from Windows to Liux and OSX (FreeBSD).

If any if you are clever-enough to know a solution, I'm all eyes. Is using std::atomic for the variable sufficient for our needs, or will that fail based on the compiler? I'm not sure at what point this was introduced as art of the cpp spec, to keep this cpp08 happy.

Which allegro file is this, BTW, so that I can post the problem on allegro.cc? ?

You can use intrinsics. std::atomic, like all of c++, is just bloated wrappers around c. Plus, allegro compiles as c code so simple is fine. For example, std::atomic::operator++ is the equivalent of:
_InterlockedIncrement(); on windows, or
__sync_add_and_fetch(). on gcc, etc.

Right. It's one of the many things that is a lot easier to do in C++11 than C++03. I'm pretty sure Allegro already has a mutex implementation somewhere, though.

Lies! Nothing in c++11 makes anything easier. Only sadness will you find.

[DarkDragon]

Okay, challenge accepted. Please post C or C++03 code that performs an atomic increment correctly on every single standard-compliant C++03 compiler on every computer architecture in the world. I will do the same for C++11

[DarkDragon]

Well, the edit post button seems to be failing. I'll post a P.S. about that below.

Here is a link to the discussion on this topic over at allegro.cc. Mates, you might want to chime in over there.
@War Lord & @DarkDragon

I have encountered some issues on AGN today, and yesterday. The edit post button seems to fail to load the edit dialogue, and on two occasions I received an error:

You do not have permission to accesss /newreply.php on this server.

I'm posting this here, in the event that I run into it again. I'm hoping that this post goes through.

I pinged War Lord about this earlier in the afternoon and he is aware of the problem. I think the host has fixed the issue... for now.

[ZoriaRPG]

I was just going to copy over some atomic code from my own library I use and use that to fix it, but if you guys want to do it then be my guest.




You can use intrinsics. std::atomic, like all of c++, is just bloated wrappers around c. Plus, allegro compiles as c code so simple is fine. For example, std::atomic::operator++ is the equivalent of:
_InterlockedIncrement(); on windows, or
__sync_add_and_fetch(). on gcc, etc.



Lies! Nothing in c++11 makes anything easier. Only sadness will you find.

Ill take your fix for now, thanks. I don't want to delve into the murky waters of this more than needed. If it turns out to need more, than it needs more, but let's try the simple fix, first.

I will also further try to convince the allegro blokes to incorporate it, or take it and expand if if they so desire. One genius telling me that we should not care about threads and that allegro was not designed to be thread-safe on 1980s architecture, is just an example of pure madness.

If for some reason it does not work on one compiler or another, we can add in compiler definitions. Yay.
@jman2050 Still has an allegro.cc account, and he is the one who posted the original ZC project listing there. I posted an updated listing, and I will add to it as time permits. There is some weird issue with their FTP upload, which claims to support 100MB files, but it is failing me. (I', trying to add the stable Linux build, which is 43MB in size.)

Here is the entry: https://www.allegro.cc/depot/ZeldaClassic1

If @jman2050 wants to go in and update his entry (here), then that would also work. Please let me know what you think of my project description and either approve, or grumble.

[DarkDragon]

Allegro already has code for mutexes. I can guarantee you they will refuse to incorporate a fix that half-works on only some platforms, instead of using their own mutex implementation for some reason.

[ZoriaRPG]

Allegro already has code for mutexes. I can guarantee you they will refuse to incorporate a fix that half-works on only some platforms, instead of using their own mutex implementation for some reason.

Well, again, if you want to do this, go for it. I don't understand why you and Gleeok butt heads every ten seconds these days. I don't want every stage of this to be a bicker-fest.

[DarkDragon]

Butting heads where? We're bantering about C++11 but switching the whole Allegro project from C to C++11 was obviously not a serious suggestion (and there's a 0% chance the Allegro folks would accept a pull request that tries to do so).

I'm trying to give you practical advice about how to proceed in the way least likely to waste your time, based on my observations about how the Allegro folks run their ship. Obviously feel free to check with Edgar directly if you believe I am wrong.

[Saffith]

You don't need C++, anyway. C11 added stdatomic.h and an _Atomic qualifier.

[Gleeok]

Fun fact: Mutexes is not multi-threading. Mutex locks are the opposite of multi-threading! Bicker!!!

Okay, challenge accepted. Please post C or C++03 code that performs an atomic increment correctly on every single standard-compliant C++03 compiler on every computer architecture in the world. I will do the same for C++11

Bicker bicker bicker!!! Are you saying that c++11 is more widely supported than c? Bicker? Stuff, bicker. Nonsense! Bicker!!


P.S. Anyway, I guess newer gcc can use "__atomic*" prefix...? But clang uses "__sync*" ? ..Whatever. AFAICT they cover windows and unix toolchains so there's probably no issues there.

[edit] Keep in mind that the allegro.cc folks like to argue about anything and everything. At least that's what happened every time I used to stop by there.