Re[2]: [fpc-pascal] Inline and defines

2007-01-24 Thread Пётр Косаревский
on. As of 2.1.1, it won't matter anymore either since the compiler will always accept the inline specifier, but only actually do something with it if inlining is turned on. Is there a way to know (in terms of $if etc.) that compiler actually does something?

Re: Re[2]: [fpc-pascal] Inline and defines

2007-01-24 Thread Jonas Maebe
On 24 jan 2007, at 11:57, Пётр Косаревский wrote: on. As of 2.1.1, it won't matter anymore either since the compiler will always accept the inline specifier, but only actually do something with it if inlining is turned on. Is there a way to know (in terms of $if etc.) that compiler

Re: Re[4]: [fpc-pascal] Inline and defines

2007-01-24 Thread Jonas Maebe
On 24 jan 2007, at 12:46, Jonas Maebe wrote: No, inline is and will always only be a hint. There are currently no provisions in the compiler which allow it to inform you in all cases where it does not perform the inlining (if you turn on warnings, it will warn for some cases).

Re[6]: [fpc-pascal] Inline and defines

2007-01-24 Thread Пётр Косаревский
Implementing it for all cases is non-trivial and has low priority. Actually, implementing the warning is easy, but always adding the reason why it isn't inlined is more difficult. Jonas I think, that there are many reasons, which will not help me a single bit. However, reliable warning

[fpc-pascal] MSEide+MSEgui version 1.0

2007-01-24 Thread Martin Schreiber
MSEide+MSEgui version 1.0 is released: http://mypage.bluewin.ch/msegui/ Have a lot of fun! Martin ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal

Re[8]: [fpc-pascal] Inline and defines

2007-01-24 Thread Пётр Косаревский
However, reliable warning without explanations seems to be a good thing. How? I think it's completely useless if you have no idea what it's caused by and what to do about it. Jonas Because I know, that I have to fiddle with program structure or something. One less reason to look into

Re: [fpc-pascal] FPC in DOS environment

2007-01-24 Thread Daniel Franzini
today (quite late) i've got myself some improvements...so far i was unable to even compile some parts od fpc within freedos (inside virtual pc)...the IDE that comes with fpc2.0.5 does not even start at all...now i can compile correctly all the packages needed to build the ide (as Pierre

Re: [fpc-pascal] FPC in DOS environment

2007-01-24 Thread Daniël Mantione
Op Wed, 24 Jan 2007, schreef Daniel Franzini: today (quite late) i've got myself some improvements...so far i was unable to even compile some parts od fpc within freedos (inside virtual pc)...the IDE that comes with fpc2.0.5 does not even start at all...now i can compile correctly all the

[fpc-pascal] dll with windows impossible???

2007-01-24 Thread Michel Meunier
Hello, I am trying again without any hope, to use dll in a wondows application. It's very strange it's working with console application but not with windows apllication. My dll code is very very simple: library dlltest; {$mode objfpc}{$H+} uses

Re: [fpc-pascal] dll with windows impossible???

2007-01-24 Thread Michel Meunier
Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho a écrit : I tested here and everything worked fine on the Application with a Form. Further, I´ve written dozens of DLLs with Free Pascal and all worked fine. My guess is that there is something wrong with your Setup. What Windows version are you using? Windows

Re: [fpc-pascal] dll with windows impossible???

2007-01-24 Thread Michel Meunier
Flávio Etrusco a écrit : I am trying again without any hope, to use dll in a wondows application. (...) More and more I think I am going to translate my code in C, because FPC seems unable to manage properly dll library. Thanks for your help. Do you think whining and shouting I will turn to C

Re: [fpc-pascal] dll with windows impossible???

2007-01-24 Thread Michael Van Canneyt
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007, Michel Meunier wrote: Michael Van Canneyt a écrit : On Wed, 24 Jan 2007, Michel Meunier wrote: [cut code] xxx and IT DOESN'T WORK, why? It is exactly the same code! More and more I think I am going