Re: [fpc-devel] How do I go about volunteering as a "release builder", so that we can get rid of the objectively untrue, misleadingly worded "There is no native compiler available for x86_64 Win64. Yo

[Ralf Quint]

On 11/4/2018 7:26 PM, Ben Grasset wrote:
I'm not young. You're making all kinds of assumptions here. TP7 /is 
/generally speaking, irrelevant in the fast majority of cases nowadays.

Talking about making assumptions!


The overall point is just that I believe it is /highly/ reasonable to 
suggest that article is of interest to exceedingly few people at this 
current point in time, and that there are almost certainly things that 
would be found useful by a significantly higher number of people that 
could take its place. Not that I'm absolutely /not/ suggesting it be 
removed entirely.
If it is not of interest for YOU, then simply ignore it. There ARE 
people for whom that info IS in fact interesting. Again, it is YOU who 
makes wild assumptions here.


Ralf


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] How do I go about volunteering as a "release builder", so that we can get rid of the objectively untrue, misleadingly worded "There is no native compiler available for x86_64 Win64. Yo

[Ben Grasset]

I accidentally replied to this one via the main thread. It's my most recent
message before this.

On Sun, Nov 4, 2018 at 9:19 AM Alexander Grotewohl  wrote:

> Not to mention the users who pick up FPC and have to port what they've
> previously learned. That information is useful even if the code isn't
> already written.
>
>
> On 11/4/2018 7:41 AM, wkitt...@windstream.net wrote:
> > On 11/3/18 7:09 PM, Ben Grasset wrote:
> >> (The same could be said about the various other wildly outdated bits of
> >> information on the overall site and the fact that it gives
> >> now-hugely-irrelevant topics like "porting from TP7" such precedence,
> >> but
> >> that's a different issue.)
> >
> > porting from TP/BP 6/7 is still fairly relevant... maybe not in your
> > part of the universe but it is definitely relevant for others... in
> > one development directory here there are well over 500 pas and inc
> > files needing porting... no clue at this time the number of LoC in
> > those files but it is a lot more than those with the porting task
> > really want to know about else it set a daunting task ahead of them...
> >
> >
>
> ___
> fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
> http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
>
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] How do I go about volunteering as a "release builder", so that we can get rid of the objectively untrue, misleadingly worded "There is no native compiler available for x86_64 Win64. Yo

[Ben Grasset]

I just strongly disagree that there's much merit or reality to the overall
concept people keep floating here that FPC's *actual *user base consists
largely of a magical non-stop stream of 50+ year olds who have randomly
decided out of the blue to "pick up Pascal again" and re-live the whimsical
good old days.

Note that I am certainly *not* "young" myself as another poster suggested,
and I have no issue with people who do take an interest in FPC for reasons
roughly similar to what I described above.

I do however have a huge issue with the perpetuation of the idea that FPC
is *mostly* nothing more than a language for maintaining your mediocre
Delphi 7 DBase apps in or for dragging out your dusty old DOS rig and
tinkering around with for nostalgias sake.

It is of course fully usable for those things, which is great! At the same
time though it's a modern language with modern features that is extremely
well suited for a variety of modern applications that *do not necessarily
resemble *whatever arbitrary idealized vision or memory of Pascal that a
given long-time user may or may not have, which as far as I'm concerned is
also great! Basically I'm saying FPCs notable strength is its ability to
seamlessly handle vastly different programming styles originating at
totally different points in time and switch between them quite trivially.

FPC is capable of much, much, much, more than "Database App Number Eighteen
Million" and "Yet Another Reimplementation Of The Command-Line Snake Game I
Originally Wrote 25 Years Ago", which I think an increasing number of
people are discovering, some who may have used Pascal before, and some who
might be younger and perhaps have not. As far as I'm concerned FPC is good
for *everything, *and I'm just not a fan of insinuations to the contrary.
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] How do I go about volunteering as a "release builder", so that we can get rid of the objectively untrue, misleadingly worded "There is no native compiler available for x86_64 Win64. Yo

[Ben Grasset]

I honestly have no idea. It's not an issue I've ever encountered, as I've
literally never built Lazarus with a toolchain that wasn't 64 bit. It would
seem to be the case though that it is indeed very possible (at some
level/point) for it to consume that much memory.

It's worth noting I guess that Lazbuild *does *invoke the FPC instances all
at the same time, and by default uses the number of CPUs as the limit. It
seems theoretically possible that if you had let's say 8 copies of
specifically *32-bit* FPC running at the same time building Lazarus
packages that they could hit a cap that wouldn't be hit with 64 bit
binaries.

Lazarus also for some reason distributes a 32-bit copy of Make *3.80 *with
the 64-bit Windows installer, apparently due to some concerns about
makefile compatibility that I think I might vaguely remember from YEARS ago
but that certainly haven't existed for a long time... I'm not sure the
exact extent to which Make is implicitly invoked as far as Lazarus goes,
but I could definitely see something going wrong there (as the Make 3.80
codebase dates back to 2002). Also just because again, 32-bit.

Either way, native 64-bit is definitely objectively better in various ways,
many not necessarily related building Lazarus specifically. As I said I've
been building it myself for years, and I use it daily.

On Sun, Nov 4, 2018 at 6:16 AM Jonas Maebe  wrote:

> On 04/11/18 00:09, Ben Grasset wrote:
> > s just one example, I've seen more than one instance of people on the
> > Lazarus forums posting threads asking about how they can work around
> > out-of-memory errors while building Lazarus
>
> Where does the compiler need more than 1.5GB of VM space while building
> Lazarus? That sounds like an awful lot, and something we may want to
> look into. Especially since Lazarus is not built in one go, but using
> several separate compiler invocations.
>
>
> Jonas
> ___
> fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
> http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
>
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] How do I go about volunteering as a "release builder", so that we can get rid of the objectively untrue, misleadingly worded "There is no native compiler available for x86_64 Win64. Yo

[Ben Grasset]

It may really truly be the case that you somehow have a codebase that
you're still in the process of porting, but in all honesty *just *setting
{$mode TP} and nothing else will generally speaking get you 90% of the way
there most of the time, if not all the way.

FPC in TP mode has been able to compile most of the old Borland TP demos
with zero changes for years now...

It's not even like TP was that different. Generally speaking it's just the
same Object Pascal, except with less features. I don't mean to be rude, but
I simply fail to see how porting code from it could ever be "daunting."

On Sun, Nov 4, 2018 at 7:41 AM  wrote:

> On 11/3/18 7:09 PM, Ben Grasset wrote:
> > (The same could be said about the various other wildly outdated bits of
> > information on the overall site and the fact that it gives
> > now-hugely-irrelevant topics like "porting from TP7" such precedence, but
> > that's a different issue.)
>
> porting from TP/BP 6/7 is still fairly relevant... maybe not in your part
> of the
> universe but it is definitely relevant for others... in one development
> directory here there are well over 500 pas and inc files needing
> porting... no
> clue at this time the number of LoC in those files but it is a lot more
> than
> those with the porting task really want to know about else it set a
> daunting
> task ahead of them...
>
>
> --
>   NOTE: No off-list assistance is given without prior approval.
> *Please keep mailing list traffic on the list unless*
> *a signed and pre-paid contract is in effect with us.*
> ___
> fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
> http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
>
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] How do I go about volunteering as a "release builder", so that we can get rid of the objectively untrue, misleadingly worded "There is no native compiler available for x86_64 Win64. Yo

[Ben Grasset]

I'm not young. You're making all kinds of assumptions here. TP7 *is *generally
speaking, irrelevant in the fast majority of cases nowadays. FPC is 1000x
more advanced in every conceivable way than any version of Turbo Pascal
ever was. There is nothing "interesting" about TP from a current
perspective. At this point it's simply just a notably worse Pascal compiler
than FPC, and nothing more.

I find it extremely difficult to believe that you're actually claiming
there is a non-trivial number of people out there who have *literally* been
actively developing in nothing but Turbo Pascal right up until now, and
finally have decided to "modernize", and who will as such actually find
that article useful.

The overall point is just that I believe it is *highly* reasonable to
suggest that article is of interest to exceedingly few people at this
current point in time, and that there are almost certainly things that
would be found useful by a significantly higher number of people that could
take its place. Not that I'm absolutely *not* suggesting it be removed
entirely.

On Sun, Nov 4, 2018 at 5:24 PM Ralf Quint  wrote:

> On 11/4/2018 4:41 AM, wkitt...@windstream.net wrote:
> > On 11/3/18 7:09 PM, Ben Grasset wrote:
> >> (The same could be said about the various other wildly outdated bits of
> >> information on the overall site and the fact that it gives
> >> now-hugely-irrelevant topics like "porting from TP7" such precedence,
> >> but
> >> that's a different issue.)
> >
> > porting from TP/BP 6/7 is still fairly relevant... maybe not in your
> > part of the universe but it is definitely relevant for others... in
> > one development directory here there are well over 500 pas and inc
> > files needing porting... no clue at this time the number of LoC in
> > those files but it is a lot more than those with the porting task
> > really want to know about else it set a daunting task ahead of them...
> +1 (at least)
>
> The narrowmindedness of some of the young whippersnappers never ceases
> to amaze me (and not in a good way :-( ).
>
> Having info that is outdated (as subsequent developments have
> improved/replaced it) is one thing, but what one might consider "hugely
> irrelevant" is a completely different issue and "highly" depended on
> subjective needs and purposes...
>
> Ralf
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
> ___
> fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
> http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
>
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] Array assignment operator

[Gennady Agranov]

On 11/4/2018 5:24 PM, Sven Barth via fpc-devel wrote:
Am So., 4. Nov. 2018, 20:36 hat Gennady Agranov 
mailto:gennadyagra...@gmail.com>> geschrieben:


On 11/4/2018 11:24 AM, Sven Barth via fpc-devel wrote:

Am So., 4. Nov. 2018, 12:23 hat Schindler Karl-Michael
mailto:karl-michael.schind...@web.de>> geschrieben:



> Am 04.11.2018 um 12:00 schrieb Ben Grasset
mailto:operato...@gmail.com>>:
>
> From: Ben Grasset mailto:operato...@gmail.com>>
> To: FPC-Devel users discussions
mailto:fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org>>
> Subject: Re: Array assignment operator
> Message-ID:
mailto:cal4d7fjpfx-yst6z3--fhpr9pts-n47ksfn6m2phd7sunzw...@mail.gmail.com>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 4:44 PM Gennady Agranov
mailto:gennadyagra...@gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Leaving aside the reason why the MiSchi's solution doesn't
work the main
>> question is still not answered :)
>>
>> If you have integer dynamic array "MyArray" is there a way
for the
>> following statement to compile and work correctly:
>>
>> MyArray := 5;
>>
>
> Uh, yes? That's what my example showed.

In your example the length of the array was set to the number
and the elements of the array assigned to their index,
whereas my intention is to keep the length of the array and
fill all elements to the same number.


The operator always creates a new array and does not modify the
existing one.
You'd need to abuse a binary operator (e.g. >< or even <=) for this.

Regards,
Sven



___
fpc-devel maillist  -fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org

http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel


I was thinking that type helper might work - e.g.
MyArray.SetValue(5) and with using properties MyArray.Value := 5

But seems that even simple type helper is not working anymore?

E.g. I was not able to compile example from
http://wiki.freepascal.org/Helper_types :(

TTypeHelper=  type  helperfor  Integer
   procedure  SetZero;
end;

Did you add {$modeswitch typehelpers}?

If so, what is the error you get?

Regards,
Sven



___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel


My error was caused by the fact that I was using delphi mode - when I 
used the mode switch it worked perfectly :)


The original problem is solved - at least the way I see it - in FPC you 
can add method to the array :)


Cool!

Thanks!

{$MODESWITCH TYPEHELPERS}

program arrayset;

type
  abc = array of integer;
  abc_helper = type helper for abc
  procedure SetValue(value: integer);
  procedure Print;
end;

procedure abc_helper.SetValue(value: integer);
var
  i: integer;
begin
  for i := Low(self) to High(self) do
    self[i] := value;
end;

procedure abc_helper.Print;
var
  i: integer;
begin
  for i := Low(self) to High(self) do
    Writeln('[',i,'] = ',self[i]);
end;

var
  a: abc;
begin
  SetLength(a,10);
  a.SetValue(5);
  a.Print;
end.

___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] Array assignment operator

[Sven Barth via fpc-devel]

Am So., 4. Nov. 2018, 20:36 hat Gennady Agranov 
geschrieben:

> On 11/4/2018 11:24 AM, Sven Barth via fpc-devel wrote:
>
> Am So., 4. Nov. 2018, 12:23 hat Schindler Karl-Michael <
> karl-michael.schind...@web.de> geschrieben:
>
>>
>>
>> > Am 04.11.2018 um 12:00 schrieb Ben Grasset :
>> >
>> > From: Ben Grasset 
>> > To: FPC-Devel users discussions 
>> > Subject: Re: Array assignment operator
>> > Message-ID: <
>> cal4d7fjpfx-yst6z3--fhpr9pts-n47ksfn6m2phd7sunzw...@mail.gmail.com>
>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>> >
>> > On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 4:44 PM Gennady Agranov <
>> gennadyagra...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> Leaving aside the reason why the MiSchi's solution doesn't work the
>> main
>> >> question is still not answered :)
>> >>
>> >> If you have integer dynamic array "MyArray" is there a way for the
>> >> following statement to compile and work correctly:
>> >>
>> >> MyArray := 5;
>> >>
>> >
>> > Uh, yes? That's what my example showed.
>>
>> In your example the length of the array was set to the number and the
>> elements of the array assigned to their index, whereas my intention is to
>> keep the length of the array and fill all elements to the same number.
>>
>
> The operator always creates a new array and does not modify the existing
> one.
> You'd need to abuse a binary operator (e.g. >< or even <=) for this.
>
> Regards,
> Sven
>
>>
>
> ___
> fpc-devel maillist  -  
> fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.orghttp://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
>
> I was thinking that type helper might work - e.g. MyArray.SetValue(5) and
> with using properties MyArray.Value := 5
>
> But seems that even simple type helper is not working anymore?
>
> E.g. I was not able to compile example from
> http://wiki.freepascal.org/Helper_types :(
>
> TTypeHelper = type helper for Integer
>   procedure SetZero;end;
>
> Did you add {$modeswitch typehelpers}?

If so, what is the error you get?

Regards,
Sven

>
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] How do I go about volunteering as a "release builder", so that we can get rid of the objectively untrue, misleadingly worded "There is no native compiler available for x86_64 Win64. Yo

[Ralf Quint]

On 11/4/2018 4:41 AM, wkitt...@windstream.net wrote:

On 11/3/18 7:09 PM, Ben Grasset wrote:

(The same could be said about the various other wildly outdated bits of
information on the overall site and the fact that it gives
now-hugely-irrelevant topics like "porting from TP7" such precedence, 
but

that's a different issue.)


porting from TP/BP 6/7 is still fairly relevant... maybe not in your 
part of the universe but it is definitely relevant for others... in 
one development directory here there are well over 500 pas and inc 
files needing porting... no clue at this time the number of LoC in 
those files but it is a lot more than those with the porting task 
really want to know about else it set a daunting task ahead of them... 

+1 (at least)

The narrowmindedness of some of the young whippersnappers never ceases 
to amaze me (and not in a good way :-( ).


Having info that is outdated (as subsequent developments have 
improved/replaced it) is one thing, but what one might consider "hugely 
irrelevant" is a completely different issue and "highly" depended on 
subjective needs and purposes...


Ralf

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] Array assignment operator

[Gennady Agranov]

On 11/4/2018 11:24 AM, Sven Barth via fpc-devel wrote:
Am So., 4. Nov. 2018, 12:23 hat Schindler Karl-Michael 
mailto:karl-michael.schind...@web.de>> 
geschrieben:




> Am 04.11.2018 um 12:00 schrieb Ben Grasset mailto:operato...@gmail.com>>:
>
> From: Ben Grasset mailto:operato...@gmail.com>>
> To: FPC-Devel users discussions mailto:fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org>>
> Subject: Re: Array assignment operator
> Message-ID:
mailto:cal4d7fjpfx-yst6z3--fhpr9pts-n47ksfn6m2phd7sunzw...@mail.gmail.com>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 4:44 PM Gennady Agranov
mailto:gennadyagra...@gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Leaving aside the reason why the MiSchi's solution doesn't work
the main
>> question is still not answered :)
>>
>> If you have integer dynamic array "MyArray" is there a way for the
>> following statement to compile and work correctly:
>>
>> MyArray := 5;
>>
>
> Uh, yes? That's what my example showed.

In your example the length of the array was set to the number and
the elements of the array assigned to their index, whereas my
intention is to keep the length of the array and fill all elements
to the same number.


The operator always creates a new array and does not modify the 
existing one.

You'd need to abuse a binary operator (e.g. >< or even <=) for this.

Regards,
Sven



___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel


I was thinking that type helper might work - e.g. MyArray.SetValue(5) 
and with using properties MyArray.Value := 5


But seems that even simple type helper is not working anymore?

E.g. I was not able to compile example from 
http://wiki.freepascal.org/Helper_types :(


TTypeHelper=  type  helperfor  Integer
  procedure  SetZero;
end;

Thanks,

Gennady



___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] AVR ATMEGA4808 ATMEGA4809

[Christo Crause]

I made a quick modification today and it seems doable to add these devices
without much change.  Compared the code generated for a basic test between
modified FPC and avr-gcc with atmega4808 updated from latest update pack
and the binaries seem to match quite well.  A bit more effort is required
to convert the register addresses and bit names from the definition file
for the xmega style in the converter I use.

I can share a patch if you want to test the compiler with an actual device
or simulator.

On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 7:34 PM Dimitrios Chr. Ioannidis via fpc-devel <
fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
>is there a plan to support the new atmega series 4808,4809 in the AVR
> compiler ?
>
> regards,
> --
> Dimitrios Chr. Ioannidis
> ___
> fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
> http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
>
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] The 15k bounty: Optimizing executable speed for Linux x86 / LLVM

[Florian Klämpfl]

Am 25.10.2018 um 20:13 schrieb Florian Klämpfl:

In case somebody wonders: as I started years ago on tls-based threadvars, I 
decided first to work on this one first and
try to bring this code into a commitable state.
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] Array assignment operator

[Sven Barth via fpc-devel]

Am So., 4. Nov. 2018, 12:23 hat Schindler Karl-Michael <
karl-michael.schind...@web.de> geschrieben:

>
>
> > Am 04.11.2018 um 12:00 schrieb Ben Grasset :
> >
> > From: Ben Grasset 
> > To: FPC-Devel users discussions 
> > Subject: Re: Array assignment operator
> > Message-ID: <
> cal4d7fjpfx-yst6z3--fhpr9pts-n47ksfn6m2phd7sunzw...@mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> >
> > On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 4:44 PM Gennady Agranov  >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Leaving aside the reason why the MiSchi's solution doesn't work the main
> >> question is still not answered :)
> >>
> >> If you have integer dynamic array "MyArray" is there a way for the
> >> following statement to compile and work correctly:
> >>
> >> MyArray := 5;
> >>
> >
> > Uh, yes? That's what my example showed.
>
> In your example the length of the array was set to the number and the
> elements of the array assigned to their index, whereas my intention is to
> keep the length of the array and fill all elements to the same number.
>

The operator always creates a new array and does not modify the existing
one.
You'd need to abuse a binary operator (e.g. >< or even <=) for this.

Regards,
Sven

>
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] How do I go about volunteering as a "release builder", so that we can get rid of the objectively untrue, misleadingly worded "There is no native compiler available for x86_64 Win64. Yo

[Alexander Grotewohl]

Not to mention the users who pick up FPC and have to port what they've 
previously learned. That information is useful even if the code isn't 
already written.



On 11/4/2018 7:41 AM, wkitt...@windstream.net wrote:

On 11/3/18 7:09 PM, Ben Grasset wrote:

(The same could be said about the various other wildly outdated bits of
information on the overall site and the fact that it gives
now-hugely-irrelevant topics like "porting from TP7" such precedence, 
but

that's a different issue.)


porting from TP/BP 6/7 is still fairly relevant... maybe not in your 
part of the universe but it is definitely relevant for others... in 
one development directory here there are well over 500 pas and inc 
files needing porting... no clue at this time the number of LoC in 
those files but it is a lot more than those with the porting task 
really want to know about else it set a daunting task ahead of them...





___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] How do I go about volunteering as a "release builder", so that we can get rid of the objectively untrue, misleadingly worded "There is no native compiler available for x86_64 Win64. Yo

[wkitty42]

On 11/3/18 7:09 PM, Ben Grasset wrote:

(The same could be said about the various other wildly outdated bits of
information on the overall site and the fact that it gives
now-hugely-irrelevant topics like "porting from TP7" such precedence, but
that's a different issue.)


porting from TP/BP 6/7 is still fairly relevant... maybe not in your part of the 
universe but it is definitely relevant for others... in one development 
directory here there are well over 500 pas and inc files needing porting... no 
clue at this time the number of LoC in those files but it is a lot more than 
those with the porting task really want to know about else it set a daunting 
task ahead of them...



--
 NOTE: No off-list assistance is given without prior approval.
   *Please keep mailing list traffic on the list unless*
   *a signed and pre-paid contract is in effect with us.*
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] Array assignment operator

[Schindler Karl-Michael]

> Am 04.11.2018 um 12:00 schrieb Ben Grasset :
> 
> From: Ben Grasset 
> To: FPC-Devel users discussions 
> Subject: Re: Array assignment operator
> Message-ID: 
> 
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 4:44 PM Gennady Agranov 
> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Leaving aside the reason why the MiSchi's solution doesn't work the main
>> question is still not answered :)
>> 
>> If you have integer dynamic array "MyArray" is there a way for the
>> following statement to compile and work correctly:
>> 
>> MyArray := 5;
>> 
> 
> Uh, yes? That's what my example showed.

In your example the length of the array was set to the number and the elements 
of the array assigned to their index, whereas my intention is to keep the 
length of the array and fill all elements to the same number.
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] How do I go about volunteering as a "release builder", so that we can get rid of the objectively untrue, misleadingly worded "There is no native compiler available for x86_64 Win64. Yo

[Jonas Maebe]

On 04/11/18 00:09, Ben Grasset wrote:
s just one example, I've seen more than one instance of people on the 
Lazarus forums posting threads asking about how they can work around 
out-of-memory errors while building Lazarus


Where does the compiler need more than 1.5GB of VM space while building 
Lazarus? That sounds like an awful lot, and something we may want to 
look into. Especially since Lazarus is not built in one go, but using 
several separate compiler invocations.



Jonas
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel