r3dfox, a modern Firefox based web browser for Windows Vista, 7, and 8!

[feodor2]

15 hours ago, K4sum1 said:

Where did you get this copy of llvm? Maybe it would be easier for you to upload

Not necessary while it still available, it is on the github

I have put the link on my wikki page.

1 hour ago, user57 said:

did you consider that .obj trick ?

https://msfn.org/board/topic/182888-how-vs-makes-working-code-still-incompatible/
(this also includes for example a newer style of the SDT)

No, I did not consider it at all because its entirely irrelevant, I do not intend use newer MSVC for mypal, otherwise I looking a way to drop it and its ucrt, going to mingw whatever...

[grey_rat]

K4sum1, is it possible to build a 32-bit version for Linux from new r3dfox?

Firefox 144 - last for 32 bit.

Edited March 15 by grey_rat

[K4sum1]

I'm not sure if I will make Linux builds, maybe if I move my main to Linux at some point later in the future.

However you can get up to 146 this way. https://board.eclipse.cx/viewtopic.php?t=952

[user57]

i will follow the happenings to this one with interests
i like that something is happening here

MinGW is something for linux, at least normally

"MinGW is a development environment that allows you to create Windows applications on Linux by using a cross-compiler"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows

so that one raise questions special the wiki webpage only talks about windows10
so it would be very likely that it actually use a "hord of" win10 functions

if not you should explain us why this is not the case

[jumper]

Older versions of MinGW support older versions of Windows, but like all other older compilers don't support all recent source code syntax changes.

 

[feodor2]

Okey I have gone to rust 1.62, to update patch slightly.

Again the cmake gasket caused me troubles, uh what a stupid stubborn s*** it is, why anybody would use it at first place, why use unnecessary redundant tools at all - make only more complexity and then troubles of course.

 

18 hours ago, jumper said:

Older versions of MinGW support older versions of Windows, but like all other older compilers don't support all recent source code syntax changes.

The one feature is the open source, so may rebuild from scratch with xp support restored, while this is totally not possible with msvc.

 

On 3/16/2026 at 5:10 PM, user57 said:

MinGW is something for linux, at least normally

On windows the same and to build all the stuff, actually I built with it old mypals 29. My be not so good as old msvc, which I liked before ucrt bloat.

[user57]

hmm sorry for the link to microsoft directly, it was because i gave that duck ai the question what functions mingw actually use (then it gave win10 and this link as answer)
(because on the mingw website there is just nothing what mingw actually support with what version - just nothing)
the UCRT and the SDT in visual studio 2019 v16.7 - in the most cases worked for windows xp (and is like c++21 or something)
the code is visable too, however if you edit it it has no effect (i wrote that c-runtime article for that)
this is because microsoft hides a .obj file - and this .obj file contains static code in this case
so the edit just dont have any effect - but that would be possible with some things from the trick-chest 
so the other idea would be just to extend that ucrt/sdt ect. a bit to reach a working version

your approach is a good idea - just pumbing in some more info 
very interesting project

[K4sum1]

@feodor2 I've gotten around to try building Rust 1.52 with your patch, and the patches don't apply cleanly to library/std/src/sys/windows/c.rs, fs.rs, and rwlock.rs. Looking at rwlock.rs, I see an entry for a StaticRWLock, which is something that only came later in 1.54. Can you send any other patches you may have applied to your Rust source code pls?

Also can you send me your config.toml pls

Edited April 13 by K4sum1

[jassenna]

billmect said:

|  I have been using the 125 version for several weeks on Win 7, I also have the CustomCSSforFx

 I thought 115 esr was the last version frme Mozilla that worked under Windows 7.

Are you using some unofficial build ?

 

[jassenna]

Another question:

What is a modern browser in the context of this list ?

 

 

[feodor2]

On 4/13/2026 at 1:17 AM, K4sum1 said:

I've gotten around to try building Rust 1.52 with your patch, and the patches don't apply cleanly

Indeed, sorry, I do not know why. Please take my latest patch for 1.62, I have updated my rust section, also pay attention for the cargo patch.

 

[feodor2]

I have a question about ninja, I never used it disabled at the first time

It tells "This runs much faster than make" whada you say, is it worth trying?

[K4sum1]

On 4/12/2026 at 6:02 PM, jassenna said:

Another question:

What is a modern browser in the context of this list ?

I mean Firefox 149 is the latest version, and modern. r3dfox is on version 149 and soon 150.

14 hours ago, feodor2 said:

Indeed, sorry, I do not know why. Please take my latest patch for 1.62, I have updated my rust section, also pay attention for the cargo patch.

So I went to try that, and I noticed there's no link to the patch. I then checked the history and found you uploaded it, but messed up the markdown so it didn't appear as a link and I guess is invisible. Except when I copy and paste the link, GitHub just says not found. Can you reupload the patch pls.

Also if you could, it would be nice to have the 1.45 patch (you only ever released 1.35 and 1.52), and a fixed 1.52 patch in case I want to build and test an older release.

Also I find it funny you went and completely commented out the Cargo checksum system, while I just turned it into a warning and giving it the name, t h e  s u g g e s t i o n https://github.com/Eclipse-Community/eRust/commit/4977b2926b2c8234fdfd619089b0a22466506e68

14 hours ago, feodor2 said:

I have a question about ninja, I never used it disabled at the first time

It tells "This runs much faster than make" whada you say, is it worth trying?

I was about to say I wasn't sure and that I never tried it, since I saw it was false when I was building. But I checked the config.toml for the newer Rust compiles I've made, and they all have been compiled with ninja. I don't have any scientific data, but I guess it works for me. I'll try building 1.62 with my config and see how it goes.

[feodor2]

1 hour ago, K4sum1 said:

I then checked the history and found you uploaded it, but messed up the markdown

Fixed

1 hour ago, K4sum1 said:

Also if you could, it would be nice to have the 1.45 patch

Preserved in the old version https://github.com/Feodor2/Mypal68/wiki/Building-from-the-source/30279851bed8073b139d942c2d9d8de3a5982f1d

About 1.52 likely not going to fix because it totally unnecessary now, what was built with 1.52 will do same with 1.62, of course you easy can fix youself if so really want.

 

1 hour ago, K4sum1 said:

Also I find it funny you went and completely commented out the Cargo checksum system, while I just turned it into a warning and giving it the name, t h e  s u g g e s t i o n

This is not funny at all, I think everybody involved will be fed-up with this totally redundant unnecessary s***, it is to be disabled by default at the very beginning. Did you give it to the upstream rust? Also I think rename it reasonable like "make cargo checksum fail not an error but a warning"

 

[K4sum1]

15 minutes ago, feodor2 said:

Fixed

  Thank

It applied cleanly, and I'm building with mostly the same config I used for modern versions, so I'm more hopeful that it compiles correctly and works than 1.52.

7 minutes ago, feodor2 said:

Preserved in the old version https://github.com/Feodor2/Mypal68/wiki/Building-from-the-source/30279851bed8073b139d942c2d9d8de3a5982f1d

Yes, but that section was unedited. Unless the 1.35 patch also applies to 1.45, which I guess could be the possible but also idk.

14 minutes ago, feodor2 said:

About 1.52 likely not going to fix because it totally unnecessary now, what was built with 1.52 will do same with 1.62, of course you easy can fix youself if so really want.

fair

36 minutes ago, feodor2 said:

This is not funny at all, I think everybody involved will be fed-up with this totally redundant unnecessary s***, it is to be disabled by default at the very beginning. Did you give it to the upstream rust? Also I think rename it reasonable like "make cargo checksum fail not an error but a warning"

I meant our different implementations. You just completely got rid of it while I made it well a suggestion, sending a warning(s) (it sends it three times lol) and nothing else. idk my method seems just funny taking what would be an unnecessary error into a suggestion and naming it like that.

I doubt upstream Rust would want to take it, and I'm alright with my fork's method. They specifically made it fail in the first place.