2.08 and Incompatible Battle Reports
 

Any news on this issue? I couldn't try it myself yet.

It seems like the mentioned compiler patches might include a fix for the bug described in http://www.shrapnelgames.com/cgi-bin...=000872#000014

[ February 17, 2004, 13:43: Message edited by: BugRoger ]

Re: 2.08 and Incompatible Battle Reports
 

Not sure, except I looked at my battles run in 2.06 after I upgraded to 2.08 (on Windows Version), and I didn't notice any changes in what I remembered happening. Not very scientific, but it's not obviously messed up.

PvK

Re: 2.08 and Incompatible Battle Reports
 

We havn't found the bug, so unless it was hidden in some other fixed feature it is not solved.

The good news is that we have added a new checksum instrument that hopefully will give us some clues regarding the bug if we come across a faulty battle replay.

Re: 2.08 and Incompatible Battle Reports
 

If we are lucky bug rogers is right here and the microsoft compiler bugs caused most of battle replay bugs. Even if there's something more wrong it should at least be better now.

Re: 2.08 and Incompatible Battle Reports
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">In particular, if you were optimizing for speed.
And if you use MSVC6 (or 5), complier patches [surprisingly] don't include STL patches which you can get from http://www.dinkumware.com/vc_fixes.html

Re: 2.08 and Incompatible Battle Reports
 

Some good new for those who don't play Dominions on Windows exclusively. The problem with incompatible battle replays has been found. There was a disagrement on how to compile an expression between microsoft's and the others' compilers.

Magic resistance check:
if (penetration+2d6 < MR+2d6)

Other compiler solved it from left to right, but microsoft's solved it from right to left. This results in the same roll of dice appearing on different sides of the '<' for windows and linux.
Bloody annoying! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif


Alexti: Thanks for the STL info and I use MSVC6.

[ February 25, 2004, 17:35: Message edited by: Johan K ]

Re: 2.08 and Incompatible Battle Reports
 

Yay! Not only was the problem solved, but also, Microsoft gets another black mark http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: 2.08 and Incompatible Battle Reports
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Hmm... it's been some time since I had a look at books where the norm is described, but I'm not sure it says anything for this. I believe the result is "unspecified"...

Don't use two function calls in the same expression, is the lesson.

(And congrats on the Illwinter crew! When are we getting a patch so we can celebrate?) http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: 2.08 and Incompatible Battle Reports
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I second on both counts. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif After reading Arryn's AAR, Utgard is calling to me...

...unfortunately, it's calling from a moose-laden Smouldercone right now. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: 2.08 and Incompatible Battle Reports
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Compliers do strange things. A poorly-written compiler could rearrange consecutive lines if there is no obvious dependancy.

1: a=2d6+penetration
2: b=2d6+mrst
3: if(a>b){do c}

Lines 1 & 2 could be rearranged by a compiler if, for example, mrst is more local (already in a register) and penetration has to be fetched. That would have the same effect. I think C has some commands that let you force the complier to not rearrange things, though.

So the moral is actually not to trust Microsoft products, since they take away your control http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif