Questions about differences.

I use Clrmame Pro to check my romsets and It states that my sets are complete and accurate.I also do this against the mamedev's executable. 

Now when I do an audit within MAMEUI64 it comes back with 6 items with issues.  I know that supposedly they could be a bit sourced differently or something with compiling, but why does this happen and which should be, per say, the "Gold Copy"? 

Below are the six issues found when doing an audit within MAMEUI64.  Now remember with Clrmame Pro everything is there even the files etc. nothing is missing or reported with issues.

bm36th      : a21jca01.chd - NOT FOUND
gtfore03    : golf_fore_2003_v3.00.10.chd - NOT FOUND
initiad4: Romset NOT FOUND
pool10j     : palce16v8h.u5 (279 bytes) - INCORRECT LENGTH: 2194 bytes
pool10j     : palce20v8h.u22 (343 bytes) - INCORRECT LENGTH: 2706 bytes
pool10j     : palce20v8h.u23 (343 bytes) - INCORRECT LENGTH: 2706 bytes
popnstex    : 970jba11.chd - NOT FOUND
scg06nt     : gdx-0018a.chd - NOT FOUND

Is this normal???

Try using the official xml as the dat file.

https://github.com/mamedev/mame/releases/download/mame0225/mame0225lx.zip

Thank you.  Wouldn't that be identical though to running Clrmamepro against the official executable?  I always run against the official executable from mamedev. 

Running against the xml also shows absolutely no issues.  The question still remains why is MAMEUI64 showing the 6 roms with issues?  I'm also assuming the answer for Gold Copy is to maintain using the mamedev's executable and ignore what MAMEUI64 may be reporting?

about what version are you talking about? Keep in mind that MAMEdev.org "exe" is not the same as MAMEui64 (different repositories)! It can be different as MAMEui64 is sometimes not 100% in sync with official MAME....but that is speculation.

If you use the same "exe" as dat-resource -> clrmame use also the mameui64.exe as basis (the same as you start) -> the result should be the same