 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 15/01/2017 8:07 AM, Chris Cason wrote:
...
> Can you try dropping in, one by one, the editor DLL's from the 3.7.0
> distribution (just copy & paste from the 3.7 bin directory) and find
> out if/when the problem goes away? If so, changing which DLL fixed it?
>
> Note: the 3.7.0 DLL's will pick up your 3.7.0 editor configuration,
> this is to be expected.
>
> -- Chris
>
Replacing with only povcmax32-sse2.dll, made no change.
Reset files.
Replacing with only cmedit32-sse2.dll v3.7.0.0, fixed problems(open file
tabs).
Stephen S
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 15.01.2017 um 14:33 schrieb StephenS:
> On 15/01/2017 8:07 AM, Chris Cason wrote:
> ....
>> Can you try dropping in, one by one, the editor DLL's from the 3.7.0
>> distribution (just copy & paste from the 3.7 bin directory) and find
>> out if/when the problem goes away? If so, changing which DLL fixed it?
>>
>> Note: the 3.7.0 DLL's will pick up your 3.7.0 editor configuration,
>> this is to be expected.
>>
>> -- Chris
>>
> Replacing with only povcmax32-sse2.dll, made no change.
> Reset files.
> Replacing with only cmedit32-sse2.dll v3.7.0.0, fixed problems(open file
> tabs).
Can you please try replacing the cmedit32-sse2.dll with this one:
http://wiki.povray.org/clipka-files/cmedit32-sse2.dll
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 16/01/2017 8:08 PM, clipka wrote:
...
>> Replacing with only povcmax32-sse2.dll, made no change.
>> Reset files.
>> Replacing with only cmedit32-sse2.dll v3.7.0.0, fixed problems(open file
>> tabs).
>
> Can you please try replacing the cmedit32-sse2.dll with this one:
>
...
Looking good :-)
Files open in new tab.
Stephen S
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 17.01.2017 um 02:47 schrieb StephenS:
> On 16/01/2017 8:08 PM, clipka wrote:
> ....
>>> Replacing with only povcmax32-sse2.dll, made no change.
>>> Reset files.
>>> Replacing with only cmedit32-sse2.dll v3.7.0.0, fixed problems(open file
>>> tabs).
>>
>> Can you please try replacing the cmedit32-sse2.dll with this one:
>>
> ....
> Looking good :-)
> Files open in new tab.
Please do test exhaustively, and let us know if you come across any
peculiarities; after all the povcmax DLL you're using might still turn
out to be problematic as well.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/11/2017 01:59 AM, clipka wrote:
> POV-Ray 3.7.1 has now officially entered public beta testing phase.
> Source code and Windows binaries are available on GitHub:
>
> https://github.com/POV-Ray/povray/releases/tag/v3.7.1-beta.2
The file README.unix seems to be intended for POV-Ray 3.6.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2017-01-11 11:37 AM (-4), clipka wrote:
> Am 11.01.2017 um 15:50 schrieb LanuHum:
>> Does not work! Linux Mageia 5 :(
>> [snip]
>>
>> Error in `/usr/bin/povray': free(): invalid next size (fast): 0x00007f2ff0017120
>> ***
>> ======= Backtrace: =========
>> /lib64/libc.so.6(+0x7238e)[0x7f30092d638e]
>> /lib64/libc.so.6(+0x7a0c8)[0x7f30092de0c8]
>> /lib64/libc.so.6(cfree+0x48)[0x7f30092e1798]
>> /usr/bin/povray[0x5ae899]
>> /usr/bin/povray[0x5af82a]
>> /usr/bin/povray[0x5b3d93]
>> /usr/bin/povray[0x5b817c]
>> /usr/bin/povray[0x5b4df5]
>> /usr/bin/povray[0x58f4a8]
>> /usr/bin/povray[0x58fd3c]
>> /usr/bin/povray[0x5125e5]
>> /lib64/libboost_thread.so.1.55.0(+0xde9a)[0x7f300a052e9a]
>> /lib64/libpthread.so.0(+0x75bd)[0x7f300ada35bd]
>> /lib64/libc.so.6(clone+0x6d)[0x7f300935b62d]
I'm having the same trouble, though with different addresses. (I am not
getting any of the extraneous clutter that LanuHum posted, though.)
> Also, I presume you're running POV-Ray from your Blender exporter. May I
> suggest that you first try whether your build of 3.7.1-beta.2 runs
> properly "stand-alone?"
>
> If POV-Ray runs properly "stand-alone" with one of the provided sample
> scenes, the next step would be to write the Blender export to a file,
> and render that file by invoking POV-Ray "stand-alone".
I'm running it stand-alone.
> If that fails, please provide us with the corresponding scene file, so
> we can try to reproduce the problem on a Windows version, where we have
> more debugging aids at our disposal.
So far, it works for me on simple scenes, and crashes on complex files.
I'll see if I can reproduce it with a scene that doesn't require posting
half my library.
My distro is openSUSE 13.2.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2017-01-11 01:42 PM (-4), clipka wrote:
> Am 11.01.2017 um 17:09 schrieb LanuHum:
>
>> I have another computer. AMD (1 kernel,1 thread) Povray has not been set. It was
>> the first compilation.
>> ...../configure --prefix=/usr COMPILED_BY=Lanuhum no problem
>> make no problem
>> make install no problem
>> run povray - problem
>
> BTW, did you try "make check" before "make install"?
>
> That should give an indication whether the problem is with the binary
> itself, or with how it gets installed.
The cookies look delicious, but as I posted elsewhere, the installed
binary does work for some scenes.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2017-01-11 01:36 PM (-4), clipka wrote:
> It would be interesting to know whether the latest tagged alpha
> (v3.7.1-alpha.8927145) works better than the beta. Since we've made only
> very few changes to the source code since then, that would give us a
> clear hint where to search for things that might be going wrong.
GitHub still confuses me to no end. My latest alpha is 8917471, but
when I feel my way around GitHub, I cannot find any alpha version later
than 8737777.
8917471 works fine for me.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2017-02-01 05:57 PM (-4), Cousin Ricky wrote:
> On 2017-01-11 01:36 PM (-4), clipka wrote:
>> It would be interesting to know whether the latest tagged alpha
>> (v3.7.1-alpha.8927145) works better than the beta. Since we've made only
>> very few changes to the source code since then, that would give us a
>> clear hint where to search for things that might be going wrong.
>
> GitHub still confuses me to no end. My latest alpha is 8917471, but
> when I feel my way around GitHub, I cannot find any alpha version later
> than 8737777.
I just found 8927145.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2017-01-11 01:36 PM (-4), clipka wrote:
> It would be interesting to know whether the latest tagged alpha
> (v3.7.1-alpha.8927145) works better than the beta. Since we've made only
> very few changes to the source code since then, that would give us a
> clear hint where to search for things that might be going wrong.
Alpha.8927145 crashes. Alpha.8917471 runs splendidly.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
