How to enable symbol browser in CodeBlocks20.03? - codeblocks

The version I used is 20.03 which released on 2020/7/03. This version is 20.03-r11983.
When I tried to open Symbols Browsser, it pops up The symbols browser is disabled in wx3.x builds. We've done this because it causes ceashes.
I've searched on Bing (Google is not available in my country), found that they fixed the issue it in later builds. But they are nightly builds and there's no setup.exe I can directly run.
Because I'm a starter, I'm not familiar with configuring the compiler and debugger. As for this, the nightly build maynot suitable for me.

You may want to try one of the "Unofficial Code::Blocks Installers" as they are rebuilt quite often. Link is to forum topic at Code::Blocks
Unofficial Code::Blocks installer for Windows x64 August 2021

Related

MiKTeX dvipdfmx stopped working under Windows XP

On our PC (under Windows XP there is MiKTeX, and it have been working well for many years. However, several month ago, after installing the latest version (setup from 09/16/2017), dvipdfmx stopped working reporting something like 'it is not win32 application'. It has been appeared that the problem is arisen by mgs.exe (ghostscript for MiKTeX). The first thought was that a 64-bit version of mgs.exe was mistakenly included into 32-bit MiKteX. However, it is appeared not the bug: MiKTeX team says that it is worked under 32-bit Windows 7.
I do know that officially MiKTeX now requires Windows 7 or higher (so, XP is not supported). However. it was perfectly well until the latest update, and even now latex.exe, yap.exe and others still work. So, the question: is it possible to go the problem around within XP?
Without knowing what the actual problem is, its impossible to offer any advice. When quoting errors it is important to quote the exact error message.
"Something like 'it is not win32 application'" is not precise enough.
This is also not a Ghostscript question, because 'mgs.exe' isn't Ghostscript, its clearly a fork of some kind.
My guess is that its the fact you are using an ancient version of Windows, most likely the application is no longer compatible with such an old version, possibly because whoever built it is using a newer version of Visual Studio.
In order to build Ghostscript for Windows XP I think you need to use Visual Studio 2005 or earlier, a more recent version will create an executable that will not run on Windows XP.
The only solution to this would be to build 'mgs.exe' with an older version of Visual Studio, or try the pre-built executable 'gswin32.exe' which is available from the ghostscript.com website in the downloads section. Obviously that's not the same as mgs.exe, but I can't help you with a fork since I have no clue what's been done.
The first thing to try is running 'mgs.exe' from the command line, if that fails to work then its almost certainly because the developer who built it used too recent a version of Visual Studio.
If this is the case then no, you can't fix it within Windows XP, you need to do one of:
1) Upgrade to a newer OS
2) Downgrade your MikTeX and live with the older version until you are prepared to upgrade your OS.
3) Rebuild 'mgs.exe' yourself using an old version of Visual Studio. This could be challenging because I can't find anywhere on the MikTeX website where they make the source files available. I've been to their Github repository and I can't find anything from Ghostscript there either. I'm going to have to contact the developers, they are not using a stock version of Ghostscript, they do not appear to make their revisions available, ansd although they correctly reference Ghostscript as AGPL I cannot see anywhere in the install or their Github repository which lists Artifex as the owner or points to the Artifex website. They also don't copy the Licence or readme files (slapped wrists for them).
I was going to try using the regular Ghostscript instead of the modified version, but I don't have know anything about MikTeX so I have no way of testing whether that works. It looks to me like it probably would, since it appears that MikTeX forks Ghostscript as a process. So copying and renaming the 64-bit Windows version of Ghostscript's binaries would probably work.
As you note, the developers state themselves that they no longer support Windows XP.

Gtkmm 3.0 library for Windows

Can someone give me a link where i can download a gtkmm 3.0 library for development without need to build it by myself?
thanks
http://live.gnome.org/gtkmm/MSWindows
That is the best I could find. It stops at 2.8, tough.
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gtkmm-list/2011-April/msg00077.html
That is an email to the gtkmm mailing list from the windows installer developer. It seems that the dev doesn't have much time for it right now (or at least didn't on April 28, 2011).
Not much help, but that seems to be the state of gtk+ and gtkmm on windows right now.
The original question is old, but I post here for future visitors.
Apparently the link specified in senshikaze's answer is broken.
Windows installer (for both runtime and development stuff) is available from ftp.gnome.org
32-bit
64-bit
I built the gtkmm binaries over official gtk 3.6.4 binaries.
For 32 bit version you can download the binaries that I created, and there is also the (simple) procedure to create them yourself if you need 64 bit, everything on http://www.giuspen.com/2014/02/build-gtkmm-3-6-0-windows-binaries-on-official-gtk-3-6-4-bundle/
Gtk 3.0 library for windows is at hand from http://www.gtk.org/download/win32.php/
And you could find more optional dependence on http://win32builder.gnome.org/
But Gtkmm 3.0 hasn't have an official release, but some volunteer make it, I find a good one, http://sourceforge.net/projects/tview/files/gtkmm_bin_3_6.7z/download
I created a blog on how to install latest gtkmm on Windows (step by step) here:
http://gtkmm-installation.blogspot.com/
UPDATE:
I have just compiled everything with Visual Studio, You can download my gtkmm3 development binaries for Windows x64 from my GitHub page, I also made a wiki entry on how to compile everything on your own with Visual Studio.
All of the Visual Studio projects to compile everything can also be found on GitHub.
You can install it with vcpkg.

Building GCC's libstdc++ with debug symbols on Windows

I am developing an app with GCC, mostly on Windows, until I got a crash that couldn't be debugged with the MinGW toolchain build I have. I installed a Linux VM, and debugged it there, which was possible, because the libstdc++ had the symbols I required.
I'm sure the Linux build of libstdc++ was a release (optimized version), because this would be normal to be installed for all apps to use. Same with the Windows version. But how can the Linux version have the necessary debug symbols built in, or if I ask the question I really want an answer to: how can I build GCC's libstdc++ so that I can get a useful stacktrace out of it, and still have it optimized? (note: I am able to recompile GCC/MinGW, so that's not an issue)
I know visual studio has both debug and release versions, but never heard of something like that for Linux. The debug symbols are always in seperate packages as I remember.
Info: I was using Arch linux with the plain GCC packages installed (no special debug versions explicitly selected).
I'll answer this one myself: you need to configure with
--with-stdcxx-debug
This will place a in lib/bin and lib/debug a shared and import library, which contains debug info.

MonoDevelop on Windows

My google-fu has failed me - can MonoDevelop be used on Windows? Preferably without having to compile from source?
It works well on my home Ubuntu box, and while I have Visual Studio at work, it seems there might be some advantages to having MonoDevelop too.
EDIT: I'm aware of SharpDevelop; I'd prefer to have MonoDevelop if possible, just because I've started to get familiar with the interface, and I believe the SharpDevelop and MonoDevelop are not so closely related any more.
Woohoo! MonoDevelop for Windows is a supported download.
It seems that MonoDevelop on Windows still has a number of outstanding problems, even when built from source (and can only be built on .NET, not on Mono). So obviously there is no installer yet either.
The answer to my question then is No, MonoDevelop on Windows is not ready for normal use.
I guess I'll make do with Visual Studio and SharpDevelop on windows and wait patiently (or maybe even have a look at the outstanding bugs...!)
UPDATE: MonoDevelop for Windows now has a preview installer which can be downloaded here
MonoDevelop has official support for Windows since version 2.2:
Windows Support
Windows now Officially Supported
Windows is now an officially supported
platform for running MonoDevelop. Many
Windows specific issues have been
fixed, and some add-ins such as
debugging and subversion support have
been written specifically for Windows.
Windows Installer
We are releasing a new Windows
Installer which includes almost all
you need to run MonoDevelop. The only
external dependency is gtk#, which is
provided in a separate installer.
You can download the latest stable release.
Try SharpDevelop . MonoDevelop is built on SharpDevelop's code base.
There was a recent blog entry about MonoDevelop on Windows. Now is probably the time to try it out.
Update: MonoDevelop have just been released for Windows and Mac. More from Miguel's blog.
It's possible, but not easy. There's certainly not an installer.
This is pretty much the only guide to getting it to work:
http://lists.ximian.com/pipermail/monodevelop-list/2006-September/004442.html

Remote debugging an NT application from XP with Visual Studio 6.0

Is it possible to remote-debug a Visual C++ 6.0 application running on a Windows NT machine from a developer workstation running Windows XP? If so, is there a procedure written up somewhere?
Take a look at this article. Also this may be helpful although you don't mention which version of the IDE you're using.
Yes -- you can also use a newer version of Visual Studio. As long as you have the PDB file for the target application it doesn't matter what version it was built with (well, VS6 might not understand a newer PDB, but backwards should be fine).
The remote debugging experience on newer VS versions is a lot smoother than old versions in my experience. It is also easier to set up if you can arrange things so that you are attaching to an existing process that you have started manually rather than kicking off the process (avoid a lot of the path setup).

Resources