Patch 2 for RAD Studio 10.4 now available

[Stefan Glienke 2002]

I reported the regression and added a suggestion how to fix this kinda properly (without going too deep into the rabbit hole of extending constraints):

https://quality.embarcadero.com/browse/RSP-30078

[Dalija Prasnikar 1396]

26 minutes ago, Vincent Parrett said:

ok I'm blaming @Dalija Prasnikar for logging bugs on such esoteric code that no sane person would ever use  

Are you calling me insane???? This is my actual code!!! 😜 

[Attila Kovacs 629]

The Oracle:

 

What’s really going to bake your noodle later on is, would you still have broken it if I hadn’t said anything.

[MarkShark 27]

Following this with great interest, but the main question is "Does this mean that we should wait on installing patch 2?"  I like the idea of debugger stability fixes, etc., but if this adversely affects some of my favorite libraries (e.g. Spring4d!) then it's a show stopper.  Any thoughts?

[Vincent Parrett 750]

47 minutes ago, MarkShark said:

"Does this mean that we should wait on installing patch 2?"

I can't really say, I installed it, my code failed to compile and I did something else for the weekend. I would love it if the debugger was improved but haven't got to that point yet, perhaps others can chime in.

[Lachlan Gemmell 33]

2 hours ago, MarkShark said:

Following this with great interest, but the main question is "Does this mean that we should wait on installing patch 2?"  I like the idea of debugger stability fixes, etc., but if this adversely affects some of my favorite libraries (e.g. Spring4d!) then it's a show stopper.  Any thoughts?

 

I'd go ahead and install it, those debugger issues are a real pain. There's an uninstall for patch 2 if it does break your code.

 

So far the only patch 2 specific compiler issue reported is related to using record constraints on generics where the record contains a managed type such as a string or a dynamic array. If you don't use record constraints on your generics (and you probably don't) then you're likely fine.

 

To my knowledge the only library that's definitely broken so far is VSoft.Messaging. I haven't read anything that leads me to believe that Spring4D is broken.

[Vincent Parrett 750]

I use Spring4D extensively (but not all of it obviously) - Base and Core and Extensions compiled fine for me with Update 2.

Edited July 20, 2020 by Vincent Parrett
typo

[Remy Lebeau 1393]

Also https://quality.embarcadero.com/browse/RSP-30078

(oops, didn't see that someone else had already posted this link)

Edited July 20, 2020 by Remy Lebeau

[MarkShark 27]

So much for hopeful thinking on my part!   First couple of projects compiled without issues, then I tried one with the TOmniThreadLibrary and boom.  I use TOmniValue.FromRecord() with a record with strings in it, which I believe is the issue here.  Anyone know a workaround for that?  I have to admit that its worked so well up til now that I haven't looked back at that code in while.

[Vincent Parrett 750]

1 hour ago, MarkShark said:

I use TOmniValue.FromRecord() with a record with strings in it

Seems like the record constraint issue again. Same issue I have.

[Stefan Glienke 2002]

Spring4D is not negatively affected by Patch2

[MarkShark 27]

Thank you Stefan!   On the OmniThreadLibrary I switched from passing records to passing Objects instead.  Seems an easy-ish fix, but, of course, now I have to manage those object's lifetimes.  No biggie.

[Stefan Glienke 2002]

Just remove the : record constraint from FromRecord and it will work. Just don't pass anything but a record then :p

[MarkShark 27]

Stefan, thanks for that suggestion!  I looked into removing the constraint and found that TOmniValue already has an alternate method called TOmniValue.FromRecordUnsafe that completely solves my issue. nice!

[Dave Nottage 557]

12 minutes ago, MarkShark said:

TOmniValue already has an alternate method called TOmniValue.FromRecordUnsafe

Primoz is psychic 😉

[MarkShark 27]

Just now, Dave Nottage said:

Primoz is psychic 😉

No kidding Dave!  When I got to that line of code and realized it's been in there for a while I was quite surprised.  Now granted, I would like the safety version, but this works for now!

[Rollo62 536]

I just try out the Patch 2:

 

From the description:

Quote

Verifying Correct Installation

To verify that the patch has been successfully installed, you can look at the timestamp of the replaced files, for example getit270.bpl under the bin folder should have a July 2020 timestamp (rather than the May 2020 one most files have).

This let me consider if one or a few files are good enough to check,

or do I better have to check all replaced files.

 

Isn't it if one file is replaced then all of them shall be OK ?

If any double on this, e.g. by hanging files in a crashed IDE, then better re-boot the PC before Patch-2,

and avoid starting the IDE before the patch.

 

Has anybody find issues with not correctly replaced files ?

 

Edit:

For example after the Patch 2

"Lib\Android\xxxx\librtlhelper.a" seems to have changed timestamp from May to June, but is identical file.

Is that good or bad

 

And all the Include files seems replaced, but identical files

left is old, right is replaced b< Patch 2

 

Edited July 22, 2020 by Rollo62

[FredS 138]

3 hours ago, Rollo62 said:

If any double on thi

One has to appreciate that the DOS installation of 'Patch 2'  truly 'empowers application developers' 🙂

 

All that's missing is deployment via floppy disks..

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Rollo62 said:

Quote

Verifying Correct Installation

To verify that the patch has been successfully installed, you can look at the timestamp of the replaced files, for example getit270.bpl under the bin folder should have a July 2020 timestamp (rather than the May 2020 one most files have).

 

Such instructions make me dizzy.

 

I think it does make sense to clear things to the author of that getit and patcher, it is 2020 and there is many forums over internet full of developers who can do better than check timestamp, something like a hash or new fancy algorithm, i read somewhere that in future pathcers might do that.

[Rollo62 536]

Yes, they have a PatchTool included, which could verify its own work.

Why are so obvious features always missing, to find the failure in the picture by ourself ?

[aehimself 396]

Am I wrong to expect that the PatchTool is simply unzipping the Patch2.zip file? On an isolated test machine with no Internet available I unzipped the patch manually and simply overwrote the files.

Patch1 worked this way. The appearance of PatchTool made me wonder...

[Lars Fosdal 1792]

Remember to start an elevated CMD before running the patch bat file.