View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Psychopheles
Joined: 18 Sep 2002
Posts: 261
Location: Nesquehoning, PA
|
Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2004 12:36 am Post subject: type 7 progs support in fuh? |
|
|
Will it ever be possible? I know there's not much demand for it, but I'm not going to resort to qwsv + priority + fuh to test big progs every time I need to test :/
_________________
Terminate with extreme prejudice.
Also known as: gantz graf
i think i'm an autechre freak... or maybe:
what am I listening to? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Spike
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Posts: 144
|
Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2004 4:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
There's a simple solution - don't use 'big' progs.
The file format is both an incompleate hack and unnessesery.
Bugs arise due to the globaldefs section of the progs being 16 bit signed ints and the statements being 32 bit signed ints. Basically, any defs over 32767 will cause all sorts of problems be they crashes or anything else.
The solution is to use a better compiler that doesn't reach the limits even half as fast.
FTEQCC, from http://spike.corecodec.org/fteqcc2.zip will take your teamfortress source or whatever else, and compile it so it uses far fewer intermediate locations for each operation.
Result is that from 64000 numpr_globals, you get 12000. Leaving a total of 960 temps, stripping 52000 that simply wasted space.
Annother advantage of FTEQCC is that it'll compile your preqcc source without the need for preqcc.
Also, as of last night, it'll support full blown C-style precompiler macros rather than just precompiler constants - essentually a form of inline function expansion.
There are alternatives to FTEQCC and this is a reference to FrikQCC. Of course, FTEQCC is better at temp reduction, and also better on overall filesize - meaning bigger potential codebase. There are differences and you may choose to use frikqcc, but fteqcc is better in most ways except the extended features of FrikQCC or qccx. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Psychopheles
Joined: 18 Sep 2002
Posts: 261
Location: Nesquehoning, PA
|
Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2004 12:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Some modifications to TF (Custom in ex.) are dependant on a specific kind of preqcc/qcc in order to compile correctly, such as the prozac-qfcc source via quakeforge. This is one of the few areas where simply using a different (pre)qcc isn't ideal.
_________________
Terminate with extreme prejudice.
Also known as: gantz graf
i think i'm an autechre freak... or maybe:
what am I listening to? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Spike
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Posts: 144
|
Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2004 8:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There's preqcc.exe, and there's the quakeforge phython script...
As far as I'm aware they are identical...
By version 7, I do assume you mean the hacked in stuff for KKQWSV...
I just want to point out that FTEQCC compiles the copy of prozak CustomTF properly, with the low count of 9664 instead of about 49349 globals. This means it'll run just fine with fuhquake's executor, or even the origional QWSV for that matter.
Post/PM a link to any QC source and I'll prove that it compiles absolutly fine with FTEQCC... After fixing any compatability errors of course...
FTEQCC has a precompiler almost fully compatable with the preqcc.exe, which appears to do the same tasks as the quakeforge one. The only difference is the DON_COMPILE_THIS_FILE pragma... which is kinda hard to agree to when you're already compiling it. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Massa
Joined: 19 Sep 2002
Posts: 196
Location: Germany
|
Posted: Mon Mar 22, 2004 3:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Spike wrote: |
Also, as of last night, it'll support full blown C-style precompiler macros rather than just precompiler constants - essentually a form of inline function expansion. |
Hmm, so you are faster than I - I had no time this weekend and will also not have much time next week to add it to my FrikQCC version
Spike wrote: |
There are alternatives to FTEQCC and this is a reference to FrikQCC. Of course, FTEQCC is better at temp reduction, and also better on overall filesize - meaning bigger potential codebase. |
You wrote a a really good compiler, but I can't reproduce such results...
In my tests, FrikQCC always produces smaller qwprogs.dat files than FTEQCC...
And you can siwtch on or off several different optimization features where FTEQCC only can switch on optimization on and off at all.
At least the last version I tested
But hey, who cares - in my eyes it's really good to have more than one good compiler to choose
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|