Recompiler won't work, but that's not where it crashes. Check if the sdl examples work.

@Tobis, what wd means with recompiler is that dosbox 64bit will not be as fast as Dosbox 32bit. On OSX 64bit Dosbox is about a tenth of the 32bit Dosbox' speed. So in Dosbox case, a 64bit version is not something that would be nice to have... 😉

No, I think the recompiler doesn't work on windows but can't really remember. Not of much use for the reasons Dominus mentions.

Recompiler won't work, but that's not where it crashes. Check if the sdl examples work.

The sdl examples all seem to work, they don't crash.

I compiled SDL again with debuging symbols and it crashes in /SDL-1.2.14/src/video/windx5/SDL_dx5events.c:

1#ifdef WM_ACTIVATEAPP
2		case WM_ACTIVATEAPP: {
3			int i, active;
4
5			active = (wParam && (GetForegroundWindow() == hwnd));
6			if ( active ) {
7				for ( i=0; SDL_DIdev[i]; ++i ) {
8->					IDirectInputDevice2_Acquire(
9								SDL_DIdev[i]);
10				}
11			} else {
12				for ( i=0; SDL_DIdev[i]; ++i ) {
13					IDirectInputDevice2_Unacquire(
14								SDL_DIdev[i]);
15				}
16				mouse_lost = 1;
17			}
18		}
19		break;
20#endif /* WM_ACTIVATEAPP */

Maybe not much of use, but fun to try. However if it crashes it brings the system to a grinding halt.

Sounds like bad graphics card drivers then.

Sounds like bad graphics card drivers then.

The problem is way more complex than this.

Compiled with SDL-1.2.13:

Windows XP and 7 x64 -

DOSBox version 0.74 […]
Show full quote

DOSBox version 0.74

Copyright 2002-2010 DOSBox Team, published under GNU GPL.

---

Exit to error: Can't init SDL DirectInputDevice::SetDataFormat: Invalid parameters

Compiled with SDL-1.2.14:

Windows XP x64 - It does seem to work.
Windows 7 x64 - It crashes, even if it is started in a virtual machine.

Attached a screenshot of the debugging window and the binaries which seem to work in Windows XP x64

Edit: Removed binaries, since they freeze Windows 7

You didn't state you're running this in VirtualBox.....

I didn't ran it in VirtualBox first. The problem is there exactly the same.
But since it hard locks my notebook, I moved to a virtual machine.

And how is the speed compared to lock stock dosbox 0.74? Good utility to test is the pcp benchmark (that I attached to some post in the forum, you might need to search for that here 😉)
And does dynamic core work? (enter 'core dynamic' on dosbox prompt)

I ran the benchmark three times and made the average.
However the dynamic core did not work.

Ran in a Windows XP x64 VM:
Win64 normal core 7.3fps
Win32 normal core 9.6fps
Win32 dynamic core 40fps

On my native Ubuntu 10.10 amd64:
ELF-64 normal core 8.7fps
ELF-64 dynamic core 39.1fps

There doesn't seem to be much difference between the Win32 and the ELF-64 dynamic core in terms of speed.
It would really be interesting to see how Win64 would compare to Win32 with a dynamic core.

Run a 32bit build on your Ubuntu to make a better comparison (though I don't know wether this works on Linux, I'm just used to OSX).

Yes it works, through you have to find the dependencies by yourself.
I hope this will be fixed in the future with multiarch.

ELF-32 normal core 7.6fps
ELF-32 dynamic core 48.3fps

the figures look good and quite normal. I used to get about the same for normal core (7-10fps) and about 55fps for dynamic. Strangely with my new imac I now get about 110fps on dynamic core. Either the new CPU is really that more perfomant or Apple did some graphics tuning... (this is with 32bit, I'll see about 64bit now. I remember this being horrible on OS X (0.1fps on normal and 5 or so on dynamic - too lazy to look up the thread 😀)

Edit:Yeah, terrible... 0.3fps normal and 3.2fps on dynamic core 😀
Edit2: with some optimization (-msse -msse2 -force_cpusubtype_ALL) it gets up to 7fps in normal and 33fps in dynamic. Got to keep in mind that there can be some speed gain.

Dominus wrote:

with some optimization (-msse -msse2 -force_cpusubtype_ALL) it gets up to 7fps in normal and 33fps in dynamic. Got to keep in mind that there can be some speed gain.

SSE optimization is very poorly done by the VS compilers, because they can't vectorise.
Anyway I optimized the build with IPO (Interprocedural optimization) also called Whole Program Optimization in VS.
I now get 9.1fps average, which is an speed increase of 25%. 😀

Btw, this is what I get if I want to run the dynamic core:

1Eine Ausnahme (erste Chance) bei 0x000007fefd9acacd (KernelBase.dll) in dosbox.exe: Microsoft C++-Ausnahme: char * __ptr64 an Speicherposition 0x0028aa08..