On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 10:17 PM, Ryan Joseph wrote:
>
>> On Sep 6, 2017, at 10:20 PM, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal
>> wrote:
>>
>> You're missing that FHook was declared as IHook, not THook.
>>
>
> In terms of memory why does it matter
> On Sep 6, 2017, at 10:20 PM, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal
> wrote:
>
> You're missing that FHook was declared as IHook, not THook.
>
In terms of memory why does it matter how it was declared? The memory was
allocated in Create() so the declaration is just
On 09/06/2017 05:21 PM, Marc Santhoff wrote:
On Mi, 2017-09-06 at 23:06 +0200, Bo Berglund wrote:
On Wed, 06 Sep 2017 22:52:12 +0200, Bo Berglund
wrote:
I have now added extra binary logging to the relaying program only to
find that the data received and processed are
El 06/09/2017 a las 21:22, Bo Berglund escribió:
Inc(RxTcp, Length(Buf));
SerWrite(FComH, Buf[0], Length(Buf));
Inc(TxSer, Length(Buf));
Where could I be losing incoming serial data?
Hello,
Where do you check that "Length(Buf)" has been sent ?
if
On Mi, 2017-09-06 at 23:06 +0200, Bo Berglund wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Sep 2017 22:52:12 +0200, Bo Berglund
> wrote:
>
> >I have now added extra binary logging to the relaying program only to
> >find that the data received and processed are missing about 50 k of
> >the 1M
On Wed, 06 Sep 2017 22:52:12 +0200, Bo Berglund
wrote:
>I have now added extra binary logging to the relaying program only to
>find that the data received and processed are missing about 50 k of
>the 1M transmission.
>Next I will edit serial.pp and up the buffers from 2K
On Wed, 06 Sep 2017 22:52:12 +0200, Bo Berglund
wrote:
>Next I will edit serial.pp and up the buffers from 2K to 60K or so.
Question:
If I edit the content of serial.pp (the one that is brought up by
right clicking and "Find declaration") such that it looks like this:
On Wed, 06 Sep 2017 22:27:49 +0200, Marc Santhoff
wrote:
>On Mi, 2017-09-06 at 21:22 +0200, Bo Berglund wrote:
>> Where could I be losing incoming serial data?
>
>Only for completeness:
>
>Can you rule out problems reagrding the hardware side? Mabe there are
>some weak line
On Mi, 2017-09-06 at 21:22 +0200, Bo Berglund wrote:
> Where could I be losing incoming serial data?
Only for completeness:
Can you rule out problems reagrding the hardware side? Mabe there are
some weak line drivers or a faulty cable involved?
Worth checking, at least.
HTH anyhow,
Marc
On 06/09/17 18:45, Bo Berglund wrote:
I have created a simple application which relays data from anapplication I am
debugging in Windows7 to/from a remotely locatedembedded data system.I use the
built-in fpc Serial unit to handle the serial data and anIndy10 TIdTcpClient
for the network
I have created a simple application which relays data from an
application I am debugging in Windows7 to/from a remotely located
embedded data system.
I use the built-in fpc Serial unit to handle the serial data and an
Indy10 TIdTcpClient for the network part.
Data coming in on the serial port are
On 2017-09-06 16:27, Tony Whyman wrote:
Is history repeating itself:
Quite likely. It did all sound awfully familiar. :-)
I've now [finally] added this to my "Personal Programming Notes" archive
(yes, I actually have such a file). So hopefully now I will not forget
about the gotcha of
On Wed, 6 Sep 2017, Tony Whyman wrote:
Is history repeating itself:
http://lists.freepascal.org/pipermail/fpc-pascal/2016-August/048579.html
Any historian will confirm this :)
Michael.
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
Is history repeating itself:
http://lists.freepascal.org/pipermail/fpc-pascal/2016-August/048579.html
On 06/09/17 09:31, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
Hi,
Playing with this small sample application to answer another question
in this mailing list, I noticed the sample application has a memory
Am 06.09.2017 17:03 schrieb "Ryan Joseph" :
>
>
> > On Sep 6, 2017, at 8:03 PM, Graeme Geldenhuys <
mailingli...@geldenhuys.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > I couldn't call .Free because FHook was a interface reference type of
type IHook, not THook.
>
> But TInterfacedObject is a
> On Sep 6, 2017, at 8:03 PM, Graeme Geldenhuys
> wrote:
>
> I couldn't call .Free because FHook was a interface reference type of type
> IHook, not THook.
But TInterfacedObject is a class isn’t it? Then you call FHook := THook.Create;
so a I’d expect a
On 2017-09-06 11:33, Marcos Douglas B. Santos wrote:
You have resolved just by change FHookInstance
as a class, not an Interface, plus using TAggregatedObject too.
Ah yes, that seems to work too. Many thanks for pointing that out.
So here is another implementation that works with NO memory
On 2017-09-06 10:30, Ryan Joseph wrote:
FHook := THook.Create;
so you need a FHook.Free call? The class is THook = class(TInterfacedObject,
IHook) right?
I couldn't call .Free because FHook was a interface reference type of
type IHook, not THook.
Regards,
Graeme
--
fpGUI Toolkit - a
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 6:55 AM, Graeme Geldenhuys <
mailingli...@geldenhuys.co.uk> wrote:
>
> I can't remember ever [while using Delphi] being forced to implement a
> getter method in the "property ... implements..." line, but it seems that
> is the only way it remove memory leaks under FPC.
On 2017-09-06 10:55, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
On 2017-09-06 10:41, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal wrote:
I think THook needs to derive from TAggregatedObject, cause that couples
the reference counting to that of the controlling instance.
That seems to be heading in the right direction, but such a
> On Sep 6, 2017, at 4:55 PM, Graeme Geldenhuys
> wrote:
>
> Either way, modifying the example to use a getter method AND
> TAggregatedObject, I managed to get rid of both memory leaks. Here is the
> working [memory leak free] code now:
Does the original code
Am 06.09.2017 10:31 schrieb "Graeme Geldenhuys" <
mailingli...@geldenhuys.co.uk>:
> type
> IHook = interface
> ['{4BCAEDD8-92D8-11E7-88D3-C86000E37EB0}']
> procedure DoIt;
> end;
>
> type
> THook = class(TInterfacedObject, IHook)
> private
> procedure DoIt;
> end;
>
>
On 2017-09-06 09:03, Ryan Joseph wrote:
For the sake of discussion can you see why it makes sense that “hook.” syntax
would be implied because the class does indeed supposedly implement the
interface? Everything about the syntax says that the methods in IHook should be
in TBaseClass so I
Am 06.09.2017 10:34 schrieb "Ryan Joseph" :
>
>
> > On Sep 6, 2017, at 2:50 PM, Graeme Geldenhuys <
mailingli...@geldenhuys.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > There is NO need to make Hook public, because you can always get access
to that functionality via the Supports() call and
On 2017-09-06 09:37, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
type
TBaseClass = class(TInterfacedObject, IHook)
private
FHook: IHook;
property Hook: IHook read FHook implements IHook;
public
constructor Create;
destructor Destroy; override;
end;
constructor
On Wed, 6 Sep 2017, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
Hi,
Playing with this small sample application to answer another question in
this mailing list, I noticed the sample application has a memory leak.
For the life of me I can't see why or how to resolve it.
I tested with FPC 2.6.4, 3.0.2 and
> On Sep 6, 2017, at 2:50 PM, Graeme Geldenhuys
> wrote:
>
> There is NO need to make Hook public, because you can always get access to
> that functionality via the Supports() call and get a reference to IHook.
The Supports() call is the key takeaway here.
For
On 2017-09-06 09:19, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
For example:
** Compiled with FPC 3.0.2 or FPC 3.0.4 - no line info
The complete sample application is here:
===[ project1.pas ]
program project1;
{$mode objfpc}{$H+}
{$interfaces COM}
type
Hi,
Playing with this small sample application to answer another question in
this mailing list, I noticed the sample application has a memory leak.
For the life of me I can't see why or how to resolve it.
I tested with FPC 2.6.4, 3.0.2 and 3.0.4-rc1 under 64-bit FreeBSD.
29 matches
Mail list logo