Andi: When I discussed this issue with Ron, he was of the opinion that this module could be auto-generated from the DLL itself, thus eliminating the maintenance issues in pursuing things like this.
Can you see if that's possible, and if it can solve these details? I'm concerned that we should not be trading a one-time minor hassle of the developer avoid linking errors for RunTime errors for his users. -- Brian Hays > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Andi Jahja > Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2008 6:40 AM > To: Xharbour-Developers > Subject: Re: [xHarbour-developers] Problem with Andi's ace32.c approach > > Luis and All: > > It's a known issue with Borland, but _not_ with all other compilers. > I would suggest that those who have bought ADS to enquire ADS/Sybase on > this matter. FYI, what I did is based on documented reference, ace.h. > There we can find prototypes and variable definition/typedefs > implemented in ace32.c. > > Hereby I attached my previous post: > PS: It is really weird! > ---8<--- > Hello, > > The following is my test result after: > > > 2008-05-22 05:00 UTC+0700 Andi Jahja <harbour/AT/cbn/net/id>, > > 1. Version 2.60, working > 2. Version 2.70, working > 3. Version 6.10, working > 4. Version 6.11, working > 5. Version 6.20, working > 6. Version 8.10, working > 7. Version 9.00, working > > 8. Version 5.99, not working on BCC only > 9. Version 6.90, not working on BCC only > 10. Version 7.002, not working on BCC only > 11. Version 7.005, not working on BCC only > 12. Version 7.100, not working on BCC only > > The test process is simply replacing the DLLs with those we want to > test. > > Item 8 through 12 are those currently not working ob BCC __ONLY__, but > works on all compilers I installed: MSVC, DMC, GCC, WATCOM, XCC, POCC > Looking at the above, I believe that I must be missing something in > non-working Version. But what made me stunned is that it works on > version as early as 2.60 and as recent as 9.0, but why not on a single > 7.xx ? > > Err Code for ver 5.99: 7032 > Description: > Problem: An invalid Advantage Local Server configuration parameter or > parameter > value was detected in the Advantage Local Server configuration file > (ADSLOCAL.CFG) when the Advantage Local Server DLL (ADSLOC32.DLL) was > loaded. > Solution: Correct the configuration file parameter or parameter value > in > question and then re-start the application using the Advantage Local > Server. > I really do not know how what's wrong with the CFG file :-( > > Error for the rest of versions under test: > Err Code : 5178, this is ACE Internal Error, AE_NO_ASA_FUNCTION_FOUND. > Description: This is an internal error. If you encounter this error > please > contact Advantage Technical Support. > > Anybody can give a clue please. > ---8<--- > > > On Fri, 30 May 2008 17:55:41 -0700 > Luis Krause Mantilla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Ron, all: > > > > I apologize for the long message but there's some important > > issues that need to be solved. > > > > We've found a problem with Andi's approach of using ace32.c > > he coded instead of the previous Implib approach for ace32.dll. > > > > We're currently building our app with v 8.1 dlls. One of the > > test folders had v 8.0 dlls. When running our app ADS reports: > > > > Error 5178: Internal Advantage Error. Could not locate an expected > > function. > > Error getting ASA function pointer for AdsClearLastError > > > > If we rebuild our app using ace32.lib as the import lib in our > > make file, the program runs fine even if it finds v 8.0 instead of > > 8.1 dlls. > > > > AdsClearLastError is either an undocumented or internal function so > > it seems that using the ace32.c approach will have bigger pitfalls > than > > benefits. > > > > Unless there's a way to protect the code from this Brian and me are > > of the idea of using Viktor's approach of being the developers choice > > to build rddads.lib with the version of ADS that suits their need and > build > > the ace32.lib import library accordingly. > > > > The other problem we also detected is that with this new approach, if > the > > Advantage dll's are even older (say 6.2 or 7.1) there is no error at > > startup and the app will blow up as soon as it encounters a non- > existent > > function call in rddads.lib. > > > > The previous approach would raise an error from ace32.lib itself. > > The following 2 errors are when using v 6.2 and v 7.1 dlls instead of > the > > expected v 8.1 dlls. > > > > (6.2) > > The ordinal 438 could not be located in the dynamic link library > ACE32.DLL. > > > > (7.2) > > The ordinal 468 could not be located in the dynamic link library > ACE32.DLL. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > -- > > Luis Krause Mantilla > > lkrausem at shaw dot ca > > luis_krause at hotmail dot com > > "May the Source be with GNU" > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft > Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ > _______________________________________________ > xHarbour-developers mailing list > xHarbour-developers@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xharbour-developers > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG. > Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.24.4/1475 - Release Date: > 5/30/2008 2:53 PM ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ xHarbour-developers mailing list xHarbour-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xharbour-developers
