On 01 Feb 2014, at 22:17, Ewald wrote: > On 01 Feb 2014, at 22:18, Florian Klämpfl wrote: > >> Am 01.02.2014 21:55, schrieb Ewald: >>> [snip] >>> This only happens for revisions >= 26223 (revisions 26220 -> 26222 don't >>> compile). >> >> Do you really mean 26223? It looks quiet unproblematic? > > That is the one I mean. It could also be 26220, 26221 or 26222, but those I > could not check because these don't compile (26223 is the first after this > series that compiles).
What exactly do you mean by "don't compile"? 26223 doesn't fix any potential compilation problems (as in "syntax errors") that previous revisions might have introduced. > It indeed looks unproblematic. That is basically the reason I ask. The only recent problem I know of with darwin/x86-64 was introduced in r26519 and was fixed in 26618. Jonas _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - [email protected] http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
