FredS

Works here.. but that code should only run if 'IsWin8'

The line with 'isWin8' is required and correct and the line following with 'data[66]' should only be executed if isWin8=true.

Sure doesn't increases my confidence, what about False Negatives.. 🙂

Changed that option then used Notepad++ to generate 4 lines with LF only, pasted into 10.3.3, saved and opened the file in Notepad++, LF still terminates two of the line endings. File another bug report? 🙂

I read that as 'why can't Andreas fix all their bugs' 🙂

Or don't install EMB anything 'till your daily backup ran then recovery is a click away 🙂

10.3.3 breaks display when I RDP into the VM .. again (10.3.1 had this issue). So badly that its not usable without IDE Fix Pack 6.4.4.

Default Align setting does that already. With that default (A+) the only way to get fields that do not conform is by by packing a record.

@Pawel Piotrowski Yes, but you launch 20 threads. My point was about a single write single read thread. But regardless my test also fails when increased to 10 million with single steps..

@Attila Kovacs Doubt that is possible, I imagine that you need to prep your new string in a function then write it out.

Yes, ends with "One Million Two Thousand and 34/100"

Been on the back of my mind since I read Marco's book but I never had to deal with strings where a lock wasn't used. However, if the main thread (mt) only reads and a worker thread (wt) only writes this should be fine. The way I see this is that when the wt writes to a string variable if first makes a reference copy of the original. If the mt reads that string it gets the old value while its being written to. Once the write lock is off the string var now points to the new string and when the mt tries to read it the next time around it gets a reference to that string. A quick test is below, I used a Cursive Number method to make the string more complex for the test, I know a version of that is available here somewhere. Unfortunately the version available does not reverse from Text. But you can simply replace these three calls with CurrToStr/StrToCurr. Guess I could let that run a bit longer and see if there are any collisions.. //MMWIN:MEMBERSCOPY unit _MM_Copy_Buffer_; interface type THelperTests = class(TObject) public [Test] [TestCase('10k', '10000')] procedure TestStringThreadSafe(Iterations: Integer); end; implementation procedure THelperTests.TestStringThreadSafe(Iterations: Integer); var c, LastReadC : Currency; s : string; HasTerminated : Boolean; i : integer; const IncBy = 1000; begin // Assert.IsTrue(TAtomic.IsNatural(c, SizeOf(c)), 'Currency will only work in x64'); c := 1000.34; s := TCursiveNumbers.ToText(c); {- Reading } TThread.CreateAnonymousThread( procedure var rS : string; CurrentC : Currency; begin LastReadC := c; rS := s; while not HasTerminated do if rS <> S then begin rS := S; CurrentC := TCursiveNumbers.ToCurrency(rS); Assert.AreEqual(LastReadC + IncBy, CurrentC, 'Oops'); LastReadC := CurrentC; end; end).Start; for i := 0 to Iterations do begin c := c + IncBy; s := TCursiveNumbers.ToText(c); Sleep(1); // give the slice away end; HasTerminated := True; Sleep(2); Assert.AreEqual(c, LastReadC, 'Reading does not match writing'); Log(S); end; end.

Was that a typo?

And Tokyo was much worse than Berlin 🙂

OK, simple variables and lets add default aligned, but that was not the question. As you can see with the TSrwLock declaration, the FIRST variable in a record is always properly aligned. I use this during initialization: //MMWIN:MEMBERSCOPY unit _MM_Copy_Buffer_; interface type TAtomic = record /// <summary> /// Assures {$A8} or {$A+} state /// </summary> /// <seealso href="https://stackoverflow.com/questions/829235/ifopt-a4"> /// {$IFOPT A4}? /// </seealso> class constructor Create; end; implementation { TAtomic } class constructor TAtomic.Create; type TTestRec = record A: Byte; B: Int64; end; begin // In the {$A8} or {$A+} state, fields in record types that are declared without the packed modifier and fields in class structures are aligned on quadword boundaries. {$IF SIZEOF(TTestRec) <> 16} 'App must be compiled in A8 mode' {$IFEND} end; end.

Variables SizeOf Pointer or below is always atomic. Atomic means access to a full variable in one read/write.

I checked for installation instructions and found none, attempted an install and failed. Enough new EMB tech for now.. 🙂 BTW: Its difficult to compare previous installers since they change (and fail) frequently but in the last few ISO versions it prompted for an uninstall before installing. Will see how that goes on my laptop later, its setup using 'Web Installer'..

Backup first! Install attempt using `delphicbuilder10_3_3_7899_nt.iso` actually removed Rio. The first screen was kind of suspicious:

Which should not be required for a single privilege.

I was using Berlin elevated when I ran that and get the same error msg while running non elevated. My own wrapper around AdjustTokenPrivileges works because it checks the last error after that call regardless of the number of privileges adjusted. In your demo (GetLastError=1300) while running non elevated. This code behaves correctly: // Enable or disable the privilege Result := AdjustTokenPrivileges(LToken, False, LTokenPriv, SizeOf(LPrevTokenPriv), LPrevTokenPriv, LLength); Result := Result and (GetLastError = ERROR_SUCCESS);

Works in Berlin when I change output to an existing folder: 'd:\Notepad.dat' Plus this addition gives me the dialog below if I try to save into a dir which does not exist: ShowMessage('Could not save: ' + LReg.LastErrorMsg); [Window Title] Project1 [Content] Could not save: The system cannot find the path specified [OK]

Just read that on your site, sounds like a great option. As for hardware; Uwe supplied the link, a full Linux version is required (no router). I have that running but I'm thinking about hardware failure and in that case running a license server on the same machine(s) isn't optimal. I do have an Ubuntu Azure VM running and that may be the best way to do this..

I'm going to assume there are no Docker images nor light weight installs (for a Router) of this? This does seem to be an important change to consider, unless one believes in a flawless self updating registration system being right around the corner..

OK, but NOT irrelevant to the Legal License Holder..

Assuming this happened on Monday when you reported and not on the weekend it only took a work week 🙂