On Sun, 21 Oct 2007, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 01:43:51 +0200 (CEST) > Michael Van Canneyt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > On Sun, 21 Oct 2007, Mattias Gaertner wrote: > > > > > On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 00:46:19 +0200 (CEST) > > > Michael Van Canneyt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 20 Oct 2007, Mattias Gaertner wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 16:29:40 +0200 > > > > > "Tomas Hajny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 19 Oct 07, at 13:14, Micha Nelissen wrote: > > > > > > > Jonas Maebe wrote: > > > > > > > > This is not true. You can perfectly compile a compiler > > > > > > > > using the previous' release rtl. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure this is not the question. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > E.g. the people developing using the fp IDE often > > > > > > > > do this (because they have a project for the compiler, but > > > > > > > > that one does not automatically compile the rtl). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Adapt the project to use the new RTL ? Anyway, seems > > > > > > > "dangerous" to me, not testing possible RTL regressions > > > > > > > then. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A while ago, Peter removed several > > > > > > > > dependencies of the compiler on the new rtl (related to > > > > > > > > endian swapping routines) for this reason. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see the reason is not really coming out, but I'll stop > > > > > > > now. > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, I'd certainly have one (more) reason not to > > > > > > put it into RTL - I don't think that support for > > > > > > .ppu file format is something so general and > > > > > > commonly used by (Free) Pascal programmers that > > > > > > it should become part of our RTL. > > > > > > > > > > And another: > > > > > A lazarus built with fpc 2.0.4 should be able to read the ppu of > > > > > 2.3.x. Even though the ppu format is very stable, it is not > > > > > carved in stone. > > > > > > > > It's built so that a newer version can always read an older PPU > > > > file and vice versa: an old ppu unit can read a newer file, but > > > > just doesn't know how to interpret certain blocks. > > > > > > Are we talking about a complete ppu parser or something to only read > > > the property info? > > > > Well, the ppu file is divided in blocks; Each block has a type and a > > size. If you don't "know" a block, you can 'skip' it. > > (If memory serves me right, of course) > > If the codetools can only read those fields of the ppu, that are > supported by the fpc version used for building the codetools, then the > ppu reader will always stay merely a fallback parser - only used if > there are no sources or to check the user configuration. > > In this case: The property information can not be read with the > released fpc 2.2. And this means probably the next years. > > IMHO the codetools should be able to read the ppu of all available fpc > versions, independent of the fpc used compiling the codetools. I understand, but what do you want to say with this ? Michael. _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
