Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update to v4.2.3.1 #6

Open
wants to merge 34 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Update to v4.2.3.1 #6

wants to merge 34 commits into from

Conversation

superjamie
Copy link

This set of commits updates from v4.2.2 (July 2007) to v4.2.3.1 (Oct 2009) by cherry-picking from the upstream Allegro repository.

Signed-off-by: Jamie Bainbridge [email protected]

Peter Wang and others added 30 commits September 9, 2023 12:24
…character after that filename and Johan Peitz would then blame us
… file in other locations, as Allegro does with allegro.cfg at initialization. (see bug #1223257)
…to non-asm

builds, and clarified that user programs linking against the non-asm libraries
must also defined ALLEGRO_USE_C.  Mixing calling conventions causes segfaults
when functions are inlined.
…psLock

flags are not registered in the key_shifts flag (regardless of whether or not
they're on) until at least one key is pressed.
…t support unsigned samples (also fixes this pulseaudio bug: http://www.pulseaudio.org/ticket/133 (backported revision 9936 from 4.3.10 branch)
It's at least missing for djgpp and probably other platforms, which I
can't check any more.  Safest thing for the upcoming release is not to
call it on other platforms.
A replacement is not required because transfer alignment is always one.
@superjamie
Copy link
Author

This kinda complicates the repository name, perhaps you wish to rename to allegro-4.2-xc to represent the Allegro minor version but not include the additional "WIP" version numbers?

The update is mostly fixes for other platforms (Windows, Linux Alsa, Mac OSX) but does appear to include a couple of tree-wide bugfixes. If you'd prefer me to just backport those on top of your 4.2.2 I'm happy to throw this PR away and do that instead.

@msikma
Copy link
Owner

msikma commented Dec 28, 2024

@superjamie Hi there. First of all I apologize for never getting back to you on this PR.

I'm wondering if you still think this is mergeable as-is. I'm happy to merge it now, and also to rename the repo to 4.2 for correctness (the old name will be redirected, so it's fine).

@superjamie
Copy link
Author

Hello! Yes, as far as I can see it's good to go. I've had at least one user build and test with it besides myself.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants