Compiling problem with Windows Vista
BlitzMax Forums/BlitzMax Programming/Compiling problem with Windows Vista
| ||
| Hi Sorry, my english isn't so good, i hope everybody understand my problem... I have downloaded Windows Vista rc1.I installed Blitzmax and MingW, set environment variables (Path, MingW). Nevertheless I cannot compile the modules.I get this error Message Building Modules Compiling:blitz_app.c gcc: installation problem, cannot exec `cc1': No such file or directory Build Error: failed to compile C:/Program Files/BlitzMax/mod/brl.mod/blitz.mod/blitz_app.c Process complete |
| ||
| Be sure you have the right paths. My MINGW variable is C:\MaxTools\MinGW. My PATH variable contains C:\MaxTools\MinGW\bin. Note the \bin at the end. |
| ||
| Nevertheless I cannot compile the modules. That's what you get for using beta software. |
| ||
| I've never been able to compile the modules and I'm running XP. that's the same error I get.. :shrug: |
| ||
| i had no porblems to compile my modules with windows XP, but with vista....You must install MingW and set the environment variables |
| ||
| Ive found Vista and XP to be fine for compiling modules etc. (I dont need to, but i prepared and tested the feature). I had to look hard for the instructions, but it pretty much goes like this: Install MinGW. If you install it to C:\MINGW then you need to create an environmental variable "MINGW=C:\MinGW" and add ";C:\MinGW\BIN" to the end of your path variable. Remember to add the ";" and do NOT add the final "\" to the paths. |
| ||
| hey, now it works, thanks! |
| ||
| No prob :) |
| ||
| I had problems under XP, but not with Vista beta 2. Havn't got around to testing RC1 yet. |
| ||
| Windows Vista Beta 2 is really really bad. I wouldnt use it. However RC1 is a huge improvement. Im using it as my main OS. |
| ||
| I know that. I'm too busy to install it that's all =] |
| ||
| Doesnt take that long to install, The only drivers I needed was the sound ones, and Windows Update automatically got em' for me before I had time to even browse the net. I also got the latest nvidia ones, but the build in ones were capable enough. |
| ||
| Well, after preliminary tests it seems RC1 is still completely incompatible with my GeForce 6600/motherboard/ram combo. Which means I'll still be stuck with my GeForce 3 AND I'll be firing off another angry bug report. =] |
| ||
| Using Windows Vista RC2 Ultimate: Installed MAX and syncmods after running as administrator. Installed MINGW, set eviroment variable and PATH to same as I have on (working) XP dev system. on Ctrl-D to build modules I get returned the error: "gcc.exe has stopped working"? |
| ||
| "gcc.exe has stopped working"? Give GCC a payrise? maybe that'll sort it. Honestly though- no idea. I never had an issue when I had vista installed :) |
| ||
| More info: If I try and run gcc from a command window ie: >\MinGW\bin\gcc.exe it runs without error. if I then CD to the \bin folder and then type gcc.exe it fails again with the "gcc.exe has stopped working" error? I have re-installed MinGW-3.1.0-1 twice with fresh download of MinGW! |
| ||
| Yeah, and? Did you give it the needed rights, did you give MaxIDE the needed rights? Vista is not XP, crap unsecure stuff as done by many programmers for a decade normally simply breaks with above error. You will need to give the apps the explicit rights to do something or they won't do anything at all. (or do the dumbest thing ever and create an admin account to log into Vista) Easiest thing to test is start MaxIDE as administrator (rightclick menu) |
| ||
| btw. Does BMX run under Vista 64-Bit too? |
| ||
| Question is more: do you want it to run there ... Vista 64 while nice is highly useless for gamers as most drivers are not signed and unsigned do not run under Vista 64. |
| ||
| Vista is the future. And as much as I dislike it one can't run from it. In addition it's not only about games but also about normal applications. So it would be nice to know if the software I program today will still be runnable in a two years time under Vista64. |
| ||
| Vista is the future, thats true. But for the next few years, Vista 32Bit is the future, not 64Bit. (most of the programs are 32bit not 64bit so they don't gain anything) Because hardware makers don't have actual drivers and using modded ones means not signed and not signed = won't install. If you are creating a game to run on 32bit and 64bit its a little more tricky anyway because many stuff is a little different (sizes of numerics as the most simple thing - int and float bit is always OS one - but the whole security system is on a far higher level on Vista64 as well... so this will need a fair amount of extra work. Not just compile and run everywhere. Thats only "possible" with visual studio 2005 with enabled 64bit compatibility flag) But basically: yes it will run. how good and what works depends on what you took into consideration when creating the code. |
| ||
| Vista is not XP, crap unsecure stuff as done by many programmers for a decade normally simply breaks with above error. So programs that worked perfectly fine before won't work after someone upgrades to Vista unless they specifically give each program proper rights? What a joke. Forget Vista. Mac here I come... |
| ||
| They will run. Programms following the XP usage rules have no problems. This rules mean: Don't execute anything else and try to remote it Don't try to write to any folder else than the user folder Quite simple. If that does not fit you, spend 3min to create an admin account and work on that one, then you have similar rights and holes like XP. But I normally prefer to work on user and give the apps the right to run under admin priviledges (UAC stuff, not hard but not what you are used from XP as user accs in XP are totally useless as "run as ..." is bugged badly). That way I know that most worms and viruses can't do anything at all while my stuff works as intend. And just to make sure: Apple behaves the same as that (as linux does as well). Admin operations only run on admin privilege level (sudo or su) not on user level. Its just that programmers for that two platforms are no godlike morrons and follow the security rules applied to the system while windows programmers do not even thought Microsoft tells them to do so for years now. On OSX it just seems easier because the installers set that up correctly, which currently is not done for Vista because vista just is not out so the needed setup routines are not present. PS: Mentioning MingW is highly unfair. Its not mingWs or Vistas fault that BM bases on a years old totally outdated MingW version instead of the current one. Would be as if you enforced GCC 3.2 on Linux or XCode 1 on Apple ... |
| ||
| PS: Mentioning MingW is highly unfair. Its not mingWs or Vistas fault that BM bases on a years old totally outdated MingW version instead of the current one. True. |
| ||
| PS: Mentioning MingW is highly unfair. Its not mingWs or Vistas fault that BM bases on a years old totally outdated MingW version instead of the current one. Why is it BMax will only work with such an old version of MinGW? Is there a technical reason why they couldn't be just recompiled using the new version? (Sorry if there is a blatently obvious answer.) |
| ||
| If Vista is the future, I'm building a bomb shelter, starting as soon as I get back from the hardware store... |
   |