dummzeuch

Simple Curiosity. Also, sometimes it would be helpful when targeting multiple Delphi versions without having them around to check whether the code compiles.

Does it also cover when (which Delphi version) a particular syntax extension was introduced?

The installer has a repair option, but I wouldn't bother and just tell Windows to open all Delphi files with bds.exe in the Delphi installation's bin directory. That takes less time than the installer needs to even start.

What about https://github.com/danieleteti/delphimvcframework ? I don't know it, I just googled because I remember reading about an MVC framework for Delphi. There are also quite a few hits on "delphi MVVM" but I didn't investigate any further.

No. I'll check out ddetours when i find the time, but I'm reluctant to add another third party library. There is only one hook though.

Yes

Unfortunately neither a rebuild nor restarting the IDE worked in this case. Even a command line compile with DCC failed. I'm not that interested in Delphi 6 support, so I give up.

Not necessarily. The compiler could generate a set of overloaded procedures for this.

The good news is that it compiles for Delphi XE2 and later (and the Demo works). Older versions need changes. I have added issues with proposed fixes on Github for them. Unfortunately I didn't get it to compile with Delphi 6. I get an internal compiler error and I have no idea what to do about it.

Doesn't compile with Delphi 7, 2005, 2006 and 2007. I have added issues with fixes to github for these. It's mostly that PNativeInt isn't declared for these older Delphi versions. Also doesn't compile with Delphi 2009 due to a different issue, but I have not yet found a fix.

You mean it's a bad thing that, instead of fixing the bug in 4-5 applications and compile them, you now have to fix the bug only once and still compile 4-5 applications?

It's usually simply money. Delphi updates nowadays cost an arm and a leg and on top of that you also need to upgrade the 3rd party tools and components. (I just bought 3 TeeChart licenses and accounting was having a fit. 😉 ) Others don't want to go through the trouble of updating because they can't see the advantage. And of course, it takes time and there is a certain amount of laziness involved. In my (the company I work for) case it's a mix of all the above. We are now in the process of upgrading to Delphi 10.2 + latest update (the last version that didn't annoy the hell out of me) after staying with Delphi 2007 for a long time due to the Unicode change. And I hope that one of the 10.4 upgrades will fix all those annoying bugs so maybe we will even upgrade to that version. That process proves painful as we still need to keep compatibility to Delphi 2007 with our internal libraries because we will probably never finish upgrading all those internally used tools. There are just too many of them. Oh, and then there are those who - for years - have been phasing out Delphi (because it's so 1990ies and nobody uses it nowadays) and porting their software to a different development platform, so they keep the old Delphi version around to maintain the programs that work until (in some far far way future 😉 ) the new software is actually ready.

That would be really nice. If you need any help testing, please give me a shout.

There are two reasons why I didn't want to use DDetours: I didn't want to add yet another 3rd party library to GExperts. Using 3rd party libraries means that with a new Delphi version I have to either update these libraries myself to support the new version or wait for the maintainer to do it. And even if that wasn't a problem, you never know when such a library drops support for older Delphi versions or maybe just adds changes without keeping older Delphi versions in mind. On top of it they always add complexity and increase executable size and memory requirements. DDetours did not compile with Delphi 2007. Since that's currently my main development version this was the end of it. I see the advantage of allowing chained hooks, but supporting Delphi 2007 is still more important to me.

Yet another expert that's work in progress and doesn't have an icon yet. I think I should add a default icon for those experts that don't have one. Maybe some "roadworks" sign.

Committed in revision #3209, just in case anybody wants to have a look. Thanks a lot @Mahdi Safsafi I would never have come that far without your help! @Der schöne Günther could you please file a feature request for your suggestion ?

I know this feeling. 😉 I found some hooking code I had used before and works fine, probably originally from David Heffernan on StackOverflow. It doesn't support unhooking though which is a pity but not really a problem. Yes, Delphi 2007 is the first one I always try. If it works there, it most likely works with all newer versions. I needed to typecast to integer and back to make it compile: PByte(Integer(P) + $A1)^ := 1; // resume = true. (Good thing I don't have to worry about 64 bits as long as the IDE stays 32 bits.) I have got it working now, just not yet quite as polished as I'd like it. Should work for all Delphi versions from 2005 upwards. I'll keep the old code for Delphi 6 and 7.

I also need the exception class, but that's easy: @Debug@TDebugger@GetExceptionName$qqrv

var P: PByte [...] P[$A1] := 1; // resume = true. This doesn't compile. Am I right to assume that it sets PByte(P + $A1) to 1 ? Edit: Seems to work, so the assumption probably was right.

I have been working on this all day. First go get rid of having to use DDetour, because it doesn't compile with Delphi 2007 and older (Haven't checked 2006 and 2005), then to find out where the functions are that I need to hook in older Delphi versions. Now I was in the process of getting it all together, and there you come up with a solution the requires me to start from the beginning again. 😐 (Not that I'm complaining, I'm just a bit frustrated by now. I highly value your input.)

I'd guess you need to change the package suffix.

Thanks, fixed in revision #3202

I'll give that a try, thanks a lot.

That sounds a lot easier than it is. Especially since the last assembler code that i really understood was 68000.

So this is exactly that case where it wouldn't work. But thanks for the link.