Is this a Bug in 3.93 Editor?

[nessie]

When I get to line 960 in the editor, every line after that is double spaced !! I'm not sure if I've done something wrong or if this is a bug, which is why I've put it here

[GPI]

Wait for IDE2. See the new linux-editor.

[gnozal]

@GPI:
You will continue developing jaPBe, do you ?

[GPI]

@GPI:
You will continue developing jaPBe, do you ?

i don't know why i should quit.

but at the moment i play world of warcraft....

(buy this game only, when you have much free time...)

[geoff]

Wait for IDE2. See the new linux-editor.

What is IDE2?

I have one large program that I have to break into 4, 60k chunks to stop the editor crashing. Will IDE2 solve this problem?

Please don't tell me to use JaPBe or whatever. I prefer simplicity and reliability to functionality, and I don't want to learn something new.

[NoahPhense]

Really? The current editor blows out at 60k ?

I wonder what the largest chunk of data the fasm side can take before
crapping out?

- np

[tinman]

Really? The current editor blows out at 60k ?

It seems to depend on your version of the rich edit control in Windows. I've just loaded a 1.55MB source, and while it was slow it seemed to work. That was WinXP, geoff uses Win98 IIRC. The code for loading the source goes as follows:

Code: Select all

    FileLength = Lof()
    TextBuffer = LocalAlloc_(#LMEM_ZEROINIT, FileLength+10)
    
    ReadData(TextBuffer, FileLength)
    CloseFile(#READFILE_LOADSOURCECODEREAL)

I don't know whether LocalAlloc_() has some restrictions like only being able to allocate a single continuous page (that would be your 64k too).

@geoff: freak has been working on a new editor for the linux version of PB which is based on the Scintilla control (the same one that GPI has used in jaPBe). I don't know how complex it is to use though, or whether the new IDE has similar functionality to jaPBe.

[eevee]

60k chunks to stop the editor crashing

This is a problem I have. Ever since I installed 3.93 BETA, PureBasic has been unuseable in my Win98SE machine. No other programs seem to be affected.

Problems seem to happen by just simply editing and also when I grab and try to run some of the source examples given in this forum. These examples are nowhere near the 60k size although my code is and in the examples, I am of course hitting the compile button.

Updating to 3.93 release did not cure the problems. Thus I think that something has been upset by the Beta version within Windows itself. I wonder what registry entries PB makes??

If I boot up to Win2000, no problems arise or have ever arisen.

[PB]

> I wonder what registry entries PB makes??

Nothing that affects the PC. I've done clean installs of Windows and then
gone to my PureBasic folder and it works fine, with no Registry entries.
I'm not 100% sure, but I think the only Registry entries are to associate
.pb files with PureBasic.

[geoff]

It seems to depend on your version of the rich edit control in Windows. I've just loaded a 1.55MB source, and while it was slow it seemed to work. That was WinXP, geoff uses Win98 IIRC. The code for loading the source goes as follows:

Maybe it is associated with the rich edit control, but the editor used to work properly before recent releases. I think 3.89 was the last one that worked properly.

I use Windows Me and Windows 98 on different machines. Both work properly with the old version of PB but neither work properly with PB3.93

I had to update to PB3.93 because of other bugs in earlier versions. I have good reasons not to update my OS to XP at the moment, so I have to live with this problem. However, I think PB should work properly with all recent versions of the OS, not just XP. I think this basic operation is more important than some of the unessential functionality increases we have seen recently. I wish Fred felt likewise.