Re: [fpc-pascal] GTK2 Lazarus Project, but I want QT.
On 6/21/07, Catalin Zamfir Alexandru [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have Qt 3.6 [the last in the Gentoo package]. Do I really need Qt 4.3, Yes, you really need Qt 4.3 But that's not the error message that you are receiving. V1.37?! That's the version of the bindings -- Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] GTK2 Lazarus Project, but I want QT.
- Original Message - From: Catalin Zamfir Alexandru [EMAIL PROTECTED] According to the instructions on the Qt_Interface Lazarus Wiki Page. That is what I assume you did. But to make sure you did all the required steps, I asked if you could outline them in your own words. On Thursday 21 June 2007 00:49, Vincent Snijders wrote: On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 23:58:15 +0300 Catalin Zamfir Alexandru [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, built LCL for the Qt Interface. Compilation went great. A trick question: how did you do that exactly? Vincent ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] GTK2 Lazarus Project, but I want QT.
Went and compiled Clean + Build on LCL, while setting the rest to None. Selected Qt as interface and the went on with the normal compilation [Build Lazarus and all, acording to the info on the Wiki]. On Thursday 21 June 2007 10:21, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Catalin Zamfir Alexandru [EMAIL PROTECTED] According to the instructions on the Qt_Interface Lazarus Wiki Page. That is what I assume you did. But to make sure you did all the required steps, I asked if you could outline them in your own words. On Thursday 21 June 2007 00:49, Vincent Snijders wrote: On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 23:58:15 +0300 Catalin Zamfir Alexandru [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, built LCL for the Qt Interface. Compilation went great. A trick question: how did you do that exactly? Vincent ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] GTK2 Lazarus Project, but I want QT.
I re-re-recompiled. Now, when setting QT on my project I don't receive the can't find unit qtint error which is good, but I receive errors from: /usr/lib/libqtintf.so: different errors here from QT classes/functions. Which I asume is the fact that I don't have QT 4.3 installed. Do you guys agree or think it's something else. On Thursday 21 June 2007 09:50, Catalin Zamfir Alexandru wrote: Went and compiled Clean + Build on LCL, while setting the rest to None. Selected Qt as interface and the went on with the normal compilation [Build Lazarus and all, acording to the info on the Wiki]. On Thursday 21 June 2007 10:21, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Catalin Zamfir Alexandru [EMAIL PROTECTED] According to the instructions on the Qt_Interface Lazarus Wiki Page. That is what I assume you did. But to make sure you did all the required steps, I asked if you could outline them in your own words. On Thursday 21 June 2007 00:49, Vincent Snijders wrote: On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 23:58:15 +0300 Catalin Zamfir Alexandru [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, built LCL for the Qt Interface. Compilation went great. A trick question: how did you do that exactly? Vincent ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] GTK2 Lazarus Project, but I want QT.
I am trying here, but it's hard to install qt 4.3 on my Mandriva ... I found some pre-compiled packages, but they require that I update my glibc (and I am definetively not doing that, it's easier to reinstall the entire os) -- Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] GTK2 Lazarus Project, but I want QT.
On Thursday 21 June 2007 11:32:56 am Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote: I am trying here, but it's hard to install qt 4.3 on my Mandriva ... I found some pre-compiled packages, but they require that I update my glibc (and I am definetively not doing that, it's easier to reinstall the entire os) Linux: download from trolltech Qt 4.3 source. compile and install. By far the easiest. The compile options are important. The default compile options do not even add Font AA. mine was configured with: ./configure -prefix /usr -opengl -xrender -xcursor -xrandr for Mandriva 2007 Spring do urpmi libxrender1-devel libxcursor1-devel libxrandr2-devel libxinerama1 libxinerama1-devel libmesagl1-devel libmesaglu1-devel to have all the required files for compilation. Windows: download and install from trolltech. do not forget to set environment variable of Qt regards, Den Jean ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Documentation for sqldb
Henry Vermaak wrote: On 20/06/07, Joost van der Sluis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You mean how many rows are affected by the last query you've run? I saw request for that earlier. But imho, you never need it. You always should know how many rows are affected before you execute a query. Of course not, what absurd nonsense. It could be a debug-tool, though.Maybe I could implement it. Maybe for one specific connection, or maybe even in a general form. you can't always know, for instance if you do a conditional update: update programmers set overtime = 'yes' where work_hours 80 i've never used it in a program myself, but I've noted that there's an api function for this in mysql and there's the sql function ROW_COUNT() (in 5.0.1). i suspect there are similar functions for different flavours... MySQL has mysql_affected_rows, Postgres has PQcmdTuples. Regards, Adriaan van Os ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
[fpc-pascal] heap problem or fpc_ansistr_decr_ref in FPC for ARM
Hi Everyone, (gdb) list I have made FPC (fpc-2.1.4_aka_2.2.0_beta) for ARM with DEBUG=1 so I can debug problem: I have a program which works okey in same version for i386 but for arm I'm trying to debug it to see what it's happening I have run program in GDB and I received it: Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. TRY_CONCAT_FREE_CHUNK_FORWARD (MC=0x40213170) at heap.inc:679 679 in heap.inc and Backtrace is: (gdb) print MC $17 = (PMEMCHUNK_VAR) 0x40213170 (gdb) print MC_TMP $18 = (PMEMCHUNK_VAR) 0x0 (gdb) print SIZEMAK No symbol SIZEMAK in current context. (gdb) print SIZEMASK $19 = -16 (gdb) PRINT MC.SIZE $20 = 690513264 (gdb) bt #0 TRY_CONCAT_FREE_CHUNK_FORWARD (MC=0x40213170) at heap.inc:678 #1 0x0002a574 in TRY_CONCAT_FREE_CHUNK (MC=0x40213170) at heap.inc:691 #2 0x0002acc0 in SYSFREEMEM_VAR (PMCV=0x40213170) at heap.inc:1040 #3 0x0002ad0c in SYSFREEMEM (P=0x40213170) at heap.inc:1059 #4 0x00029ad8 in FREEMEM (P=0x40213178) at heap.inc:342 #5 0x0001cd0c in fpc_ansistr_decr_ref (S=0x40213178) at astrings.inc:107 #6 0x00077ee8 in LUAPUSHVARIANT (L=0xdda08, N=void) at LuaUtils.pas:464 #7 0x00069a10 in LUACOPYTABLE (L=0xdda08, IDXFROM=4, IDXTO=2, MTTO=3) at lua_WrapUp.pas:51 #8 0x00069dd8 in NEW_TMYTYPE (L=0xdda08) at lua_WrapUp.pas:125 #9 0x000961bc in luaD_precall () #10 0x0009f084 in luaV_execute () #11 0x in ?? () mc^size of 690513264 is not very regular, is it? What size is normal for it? Any Idea? How Can I patch it? thank you for your help Jose Pascual ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] GTK2 Lazarus Project, but I want QT.
In the next few days I will add a conditional define to select if you want to work with Qt 4.3 or Qt 4.2 This should allow for more flexibility when deploying the application. bye, -- Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] GTK2 Lazarus Project, but I want QT.
I may have the easiest job of them all. I'm updating my Gentoo QT to 4.3 which compiles the source, installs it and makes all necesary adjustments. Still compiling. 4 hours have passed and Qt is still compiling. Sincerely, don't know why I even bother, but once it's finished I just hope the errors in Lazarus will be gone and I can provide you guys with some feedback on what libqtintf.so and the Qt4.pas unit are saying. I'll be happy if it will work out-of-the-box, but I'm not that optimistic. I'll be back in a few hours. Oh, btw. Great mailing-list. I never thought feedback and help were so prompt. On Thursday 21 June 2007 13:38, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote: In the next few days I will add a conditional define to select if you want to work with Qt 4.3 or Qt 4.2 This should allow for more flexibility when deploying the application. bye, ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] GTK2 Lazarus Project, but I want QT.
Ok, it works but I have problems: 1. MessageDlg function shows the text, but doesn't show the buttons [mbOK] and [mbCancel]. 2. The menu in KCalculator doesn't show. It's there, but the EditResult TEdit component along with the butons just top it, instead of sitting right below it, they float over it. As I remember, Qt 4.3 support is incomplete in Lazarus/FreePascal, ain't it? On Thursday 21 June 2007 13:38, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote: In the next few days I will add a conditional define to select if you want to work with Qt 4.3 or Qt 4.2 This should allow for more flexibility when deploying the application. bye, ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] GTK2 Lazarus Project, but I want QT.
Op Thu, 21 Jun 2007, schreef Catalin Zamfir Alexandru: I may have the easiest job of them all. I'm updating my Gentoo QT to 4.3 which compiles the source, installs it and makes all necesary adjustments. Still compiling. 4 hours have passed and Qt is still compiling. QT takes a **very** long time to compile. Don't be surprised if it is 24 hours or so. Daniël___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] GTK2 Lazarus Project, but I want QT.
On Thursday 21 June 2007 11:58:38 am Catalin Zamfir Alexandru wrote: Still compiling. 4 hours have passed and Qt is still compiling. hehe, that is why I just bought a new computer (Core2Duo,2GB): 20 minutes now :-). But 4 hours is a lot, it did not take that long on my 2.54GHz with 256 MB. Compiling C++ needs memory. regards, Den Jean ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
[fpc-pascal] Compiler Crash
Hello,
my fpc (current version from svn ) compiler crashes, when I compile a
procedure like this:
procedure Crash;
var
c0: function: pointer; cdecl;
c1: function: integer; cdecl;
m: HMODULE;
begin
m:= LoadLibrary('blah.dll');
c0:= GetProcAddress(m, 'c0');
c1:= c0();
c1;
end;
btw. is there a known problem when using cdecl ?
cheers,
Adrian.
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] CheckSynchronize
- Original Message - From: Jonas Maebe [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 10:34 am Subject: Re: [fpc-pascal] CheckSynchronize On 18 jun 2007, at 19:48, Vincent Snijders wrote: Is it our fault that we call CheckSynchronize nested (i.e. indirectly from a synchronized method) or is a CheckSynchronize not smart enough not to call the synchronized method (i.e MyMessage) twice, even if Synchronize is called only once for this method. If the latter It is the latter. Nested CheckSynchronize calls are currently unsupported. The following patch from Micha works with pfc 2.1.5: I tried to run the test programs with fpc 2.3.1 too, but I had too much troubles with the heapmanager to be able to test it. Can this patch be applied? Vincent Index: rtl/objpas/classes/classes.inc === --- rtl/objpas/classes/classes.inc (revision 7729) +++ rtl/objpas/classes/classes.inc (working copy) @@ -177,12 +177,12 @@ if DoSynchronizeMethod then begin +DoSynchronizeMethod:=false; try SynchronizeMethod; except SynchronizeException:=Exception(AcquireExceptionObject); end; -DoSynchronizeMethod:=false; RtlEventSetEvent(ExecuteEvent); end; end; ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
[fpc-pascal] Interesting namespace question
Hi,
I saw an interesting bug on C++, and I was wondering how to solve this
type of bug in Pascal:
{$MODE OBJFPC}
program namespace_test;
function test : boolean;
begin
result := true;
end;
type
TTest = class
function test : boolean;
end;
function TTest.test : boolean;
begin
result := test;
end;
var
c_test : TTest;
begin
c_test := TTest.create;
try
writeln (c_test.test);
finally
c_test.free;
end;
end.
OK the question is, the TTest.test, what is the test function that it
will call, the one inside the class, or the one outside it (I belive
that it will call itself once), and how can i call the function
outside the class ?
Ido
--
http://ik.homelinux.org/
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] CheckSynchronize
On 21 jun 2007, at 14:45, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The following patch from Micha works with pfc 2.1.5: I tried to run the test programs with fpc 2.3.1 too, but I had too much troubles with the heapmanager to be able to test it. Can this patch be applied? I think it's ok. Jonas ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Interesting namespace question
- Original Message -
From: ik [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thursday, June 21, 2007 2:53 pm
Subject: [fpc-pascal] Interesting namespace question
Hi,
I saw an interesting bug on C++, and I was wondering how to solve this
type of bug in Pascal:
{$MODE OBJFPC}
program namespace_test;
function test : boolean;
begin
result := true;
end;
type
TTest = class
function test : boolean;
end;
function TTest.test : boolean;
begin
result := test;
end;
var
c_test : TTest;
begin
c_test := TTest.create;
try
writeln (c_test.test);
finally
c_test.free;
end;
end.
OK the question is, the TTest.test, what is the test function that it
will call, the one inside the class, or the one outside it (I belive
that it will call itself once), and how can i call the function
outside the class ?
I think it will call itself, until it runs out of stack space (error 202).
If you want to call the test function, use namespace_test.test;
Vincent
P.S. To be sure, just compile the code ...
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] CheckSynchronize
- Original Message - From: Jonas Maebe [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thursday, June 21, 2007 2:54 pm Subject: Re: [fpc-pascal] CheckSynchronize On 21 jun 2007, at 14:45, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The following patch from Micha works with pfc 2.1.5: I tried to run the test programs with fpc 2.3.1 too, but I had too much troubles with the heapmanager to be able to test it. Can this patch be applied? I think it's ok. Shall I apply to trunk, so that it can be merged to the fixes_2_2 branch later this week? Vincent ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] CheckSynchronize
On 21 jun 2007, at 14:54, Jonas Maebe wrote: On 21 jun 2007, at 14:45, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The following patch from Micha works with pfc 2.1.5: I tried to run the test programs with fpc 2.3.1 too, but I had too much troubles with the heapmanager to be able to test it. Can this patch be applied? I think it's ok. But I'd prefer not to apply it in 2.1.5 (and rather wait for 2.2.1), because it is hard to see/know all side effects from such a change. Jonas ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Interesting namespace question
Op Thu, 21 Jun 2007, schreef [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I think it will call itself, until it runs out of stack space (error 202). No, it won't, test here refers to the function result variable. Daniël___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] GTK2 Lazarus Project, but I want QT.
I just added here support for Qt 4.2 Only some ifdefs to switch between qt4 and the qt42 unit were necessary. You can turn the Qt 4.2 mode using the define USE_QT_4_2. commited on revision 11352 Unfortunately it didn't work. Compiles and links fine, but crashes at startup. Not sure what is wrong, however. Anyway, I need to go now, I'll be back in manyy hours or in the weekend. [EMAIL PROTECTED] test]$ ./projecttest Gleitkomma-Ausnahme Lol! Maybe it wasn't a good idea to change my linux to german =) I have no idea what this means ... only that Ausnahme=exception Possibilities: 1 - I need to upgrade my Qt 4.2.2 to 4.2.3 2 - The quick bindings that Dean made are broken. Backtrace just for the record: [EMAIL PROTECTED] test]$ ./projecttest Gleitkomma-Ausnahme (gdb) break fpc_raiseexception Breakpoint 1 at 0x805b00a (gdb) run Starting program: /home/felipe/Programas/test/projecttest Reading symbols from shared object read from target memory...done. Loaded system supplied DSO at 0xbfffe000 Program received signal SIGFPE, Arithmetic exception. 0xb7f0e95f in do_lookup_x (undef_name=0xb70427e0 __cxa_finalize, hash=199910549, ref=0xb70426d4, result=0xbf830990, scope=0xb7f1f838, i=1, version=0xb7041f50, flags=0, skip=0x0, type_class=Variable type_class is not available. ) at do-lookup.h:72 72 do-lookup.h: Datei oder Verzeichnis nicht gefunden. in do-lookup.h (gdb) bt #0 0xb7f0e95f in do_lookup_x (undef_name=0xb70427e0 __cxa_finalize, hash=199910549, ref=0xb70426d4, result=0xbf830990, scope=0xb7f1f838, i=1, version=0xb7041f50, flags=0, skip=0x0, type_class=Variable type_class is not available. ) at do-lookup.h:72 #1 0xb7f0ec77 in _dl_lookup_symbol_x (undef_name=0xb70427e0 __cxa_finalize, undef_map=0xb7276af8, ref=0xbf830ab0, symbol_scope=0xb7276ca0, version=0xb7041f50, type_class=0, flags=0, skip_map=0x0) at dl-lookup.c:233 #2 0xb7f10253 in _dl_relocate_object (l=Variable l is not available. ) at ../sysdeps/i386/dl-machine.h:354 #3 0xb7f0931f in dl_main (phdr=0x8048034, phnum=160, user_entry=0xbf830ea0) at rtld.c:2235 #4 0xb7f1842e in _dl_sysdep_start (start_argptr=0xbf830f00, dl_main=0xb7f08050 dl_main) at ../elf/dl-sysdep.o:239 #5 0xb7f07709 in _dl_start (arg=0xbf830f00) at rtld.c:333 #6 0xb7f06847 in _start () at rtld.c:788 (gdb) In case anyone is wondering by this bizarre error, the app does work fine with Gtk 2 ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] CheckSynchronize
- Original Message - From: Jonas Maebe [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thursday, June 21, 2007 2:57 pm Subject: Re: [fpc-pascal] CheckSynchronize On 21 jun 2007, at 14:54, Jonas Maebe wrote: On 21 jun 2007, at 14:45, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The following patch from Micha works with pfc 2.1.5: I tried to run the test programs with fpc 2.3.1 too, but I had too much troubles with the heapmanager to be able to test it. Can this patch be applied? I think it's ok. But I'd prefer not to apply it in 2.1.5 (and rather wait for 2.2.1), because it is hard to see/know all side effects from such a change. I committed it in trunk in r7756. I created a wiki page with missing changes in the fixes branch. I am considering to add them the snapshots built for Lazarus. http://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/Useful_changes_not_in_the_fixes_branch Vincent ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Interesting namespace question
Hi! New list member here...
I saw an interesting bug on C++, and I was wondering how to solve this
type of bug in Pascal:
This is easily resolved.
Try this version:
{$MODE OBJFPC}
program namespace_test;
function test : boolean;
begin
writeln('public function test called.');
result := true;
end;
type
TTest = class
function test : boolean;
end;
function TTest.test : boolean;
begin
writeln('method TTest.test called.');
result := test;
end;
var
c_test : TTest;
begin
c_test := TTest.create;
try
writeln (c_test.test); // calls the class method
writeln (namespace_test.test); // calls the public function
finally
c_test.free;
end;
end.
Tom
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
[fpc-pascal] why {$E+} is in fpcsrc/rtl/inc/objects.pp?
Hi Everyone,
I have downloaded last snap (20_06_2007) for fpc 2.3.1 and I have make and
make installed for i386,
for ARM compilation stop compiling objects.pp because {$E+} is inside code,
It does not work for ARM I have commented this switch to comopile.
best regards
Jose Pascual
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] CheckSynchronize
On 21 jun 2007, at 16:52, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I committed it in trunk in r7756. I created a wiki page with missing changes in the fixes branch. I am considering to add them the snapshots built for Lazarus. http://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/ Useful_changes_not_in_the_fixes_branch Please do not call such a modified FPC release 2.2.0, that will lead to confusion and we will have to start asking which 2.2.0 release people have installed. Jonas ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
[fpc-pascal] Starting new threads
Hello, When you want to start a new thread, please create a new mail, instead of replying to a another message and changing the subject. The latter method messes up automatic threading in most email clients, because there are other email headers apart from the subject which indicate to which thread an email belongs (and this header is wrong if you reply). Thanks, Jonas FPC mailing lists admin ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] GTK2 Lazarus Project, but I want QT.
Hi, I am currently running in KDE-3.4. I am going to ruin my system if I try to compile QT-4 ? thanks Alain On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 14:30 +0200, Daniël Mantione wrote: Op Thu, 21 Jun 2007, schreef Catalin Zamfir Alexandru: I may have the easiest job of them all. I'm updating my Gentoo QT to 4.3 which compiles the source, installs it and makes all necesary adjustments. Still compiling. 4 hours have passed and Qt is still compiling. QT takes a **very** long time to compile. Don't be surprised if it is 24 hours or so. Daniël ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
[fpc-pascal] RE: heap problem or fpc_ansistr_decr_ref in FPC for ARM
Hi, I have tried to compile program which failed in version 2.1.4 ppcrossarm as: Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. TRY_CONCAT_FREE_CHUNK_FORWARD (MC=0x40213170) at heap.inc:679 679 in heap.inc with a version 2.3.1 ppcrossarm (snap 20/06/2007) with other different error also in heap.inc: Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. 0x0002a948 in WAITFREE_VAR (PMCV=0xdf770, LOC_FREELISTS=0x0) at heap.inc:1054 1054 pmcv^.next_var := loc_freelists^.waitvar; As we can see in line 1054 code try to access to waitvar field in loc_freelists but this address is 0x0? backtrace: (gdb) bt #0 WAITFREE_VAR (PMCV=0xdf770, LOC_FREELISTS=0x0) at heap.inc:1054 #1 0x0002aac0 in SYSFREEMEM_VAR (LOC_FREELISTS=0xdf784, PMCV=0x1) at heap.inc:1114 #2 0x0002abac in SYSFREEMEM (P=0xdf77c) at heap.inc:1154 #3 0x000297e4 in FREEMEM (P=0x1) at heap.inc:289 #4 0x0001cca0 in fpc_ansistr_decr_ref (S=0xdf77c) at astrings.inc:107 #5 0x00079318 in LUAPUSHVARIANT (L=0xe6a08, N=void) at LuaUtils.pas:464 #6 0x0006adf4 in LUACOPYTABLE (L=0xe6a08, IDXFROM=6, IDXTO=2, MTTO=3) at lua_WrapUp.pas:51 #7 0x0006ae30 in LUACOPYTABLE (L=0xe6a08, IDXFROM=4, IDXTO=2, MTTO=3) at lua_WrapUp.pas:57 #8 0x0006b1bc in NEW_TMYTYPE (L=0xe6a08) at lua_WrapUp.pas:125 #9 0x0009dc98 in luaD_precall () #10 0x000a6b60 in luaV_execute () #11 0x in ?? () any suggestion to patch it? thank you in advanced. Jose Pascual ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Starting new threads
When you want to start a new thread, please create a new mail, instead of replying to a another message and changing the subject. The latter method messes up automatic threading in most email clients, because there are other email headers apart from the subject which indicate to which thread an email belongs (and this header is wrong if you reply). I assume that is directed at me. :) My apologies. I was attempting to respond to Interesting namespace question, but I was not a member of the list yet, so I attempted to duplicate the subject. I should have known better. Tom ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Starting new threads
By the way is NNTP forbidden? I would much rather use NNTP over a mailing list. Thanks, Tom ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
[fpc-pascal] RE: fpc-pascal Digest, Vol 34, Issue 53
No, it won't, test here refers to the function result variable. Is that the correct behaviour? I thought scope would be applied outwards so, first it would look at local procedures, then methods of the same class and lastly global routines. Dean ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Starting new threads
Tom York wrote: By the way is NNTP forbidden? I would much rather use NNTP over a mailing list. IIRC, these lists are mirrored in gmane, so perhaps you can use gmane ? Have the mailing list subscription, but configure it to not send email. Micha ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] CheckSynchronize
On 21 jun 2007, at 16:52, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I committed it in trunk in r7756. I created a wiki page with missing changes in the fixes branch. I am considering to add them the snapshots built for Lazarus. http://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/ Useful_changes_not_in_the_fixes_branch Please do not call such a modified FPC release 2.2.0, that will lead to confusion and we will have to start asking which 2.2.0 release people have installed. You can also wait after the release and then use the 2.2.1 snapshot. After the release tag/branch is created the listed revisions can be merged to fixes_2_2 which is then know as 2.2.1 in svn. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] CheckSynchronize
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 17:08:05 +0200 Jonas Maebe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 21 jun 2007, at 16:52, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I committed it in trunk in r7756. I created a wiki page with missing changes in the fixes branch. I am considering to add them the snapshots built for Lazarus. http://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/ Useful_changes_not_in_the_fixes_branch Please do not call such a modified FPC release 2.2.0, that will lead to confusion and we will have to start asking which 2.2.0 release people have installed. What do you propose? 2.2.0.L 2.2.0.1? Vincent ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] CheckSynchronize
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:27:48 +0200 (CEST) Peter Vreman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 21 jun 2007, at 16:52, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I committed it in trunk in r7756. I created a wiki page with missing changes in the fixes branch. I am considering to add them the snapshots built for Lazarus. http://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/ Useful_changes_not_in_the_fixes_branch Please do not call such a modified FPC release 2.2.0, that will lead to confusion and we will have to start asking which 2.2.0 release people have installed. You can also wait after the release and then use the 2.2.1 snapshot. After the release tag/branch is created the listed revisions can be merged to fixes_2_2 which is then know as 2.2.1 in svn. Waiting until after the release has the disadvantage that these things cannot be tested, unless you use fpc 2.3.1, which to unstable at the moment. And I do actually want to be as close as possible to the release code, but IMHO opnion the merge policy of the fpc team is too strict. Vincent ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] CheckSynchronize
I think it's a bad idea to release Lazarus with a patched FPC 2.2 If FPC 2.2 isn't suitable for a Lazarus release, IMHO we should wait for 2.2.2 or similar. thanks, -- Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] CheckSynchronize
On 21 jun 2007, at 18:39, Vincent Snijders wrote: And I do actually want to be as close as possible to the release code, but IMHO opnion the merge policy of the fpc team is too strict. Afaics none of the two issues listed on that wiki page are regressions. I therefore don't think it is unreasonable to not merge changes of which no one knows the overall effects 1 month before the final release, with not even a beta release in between. We have done such things before (like switching the compiler to executeprocess shortly before a release because dos.exec had 255 char limitations, and then after the release it turned out that in some not that uncommon situations executeprocess didn't work properly) and we learnt from those mistakes, which is the whole reason why we now have a release/merge procedure. Jonas ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Interesting namespace question
Hi,
Thank you all for the answer. I learned that i can do program_name.
for namespace as well cool :)
Ido
On 6/21/07, Tom York [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi! New list member here...
I saw an interesting bug on C++, and I was wondering how to solve this
type of bug in Pascal:
This is easily resolved.
Try this version:
{$MODE OBJFPC}
program namespace_test;
function test : boolean;
begin
writeln('public function test called.');
result := true;
end;
type
TTest = class
function test : boolean;
end;
function TTest.test : boolean;
begin
writeln('method TTest.test called.');
result := test;
end;
var
c_test : TTest;
begin
c_test := TTest.create;
try
writeln (c_test.test); // calls the class method
writeln (namespace_test.test); // calls the public function
finally
c_test.free;
end;
end.
Tom
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
--
http://ik.homelinux.org/
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
[fpc-pascal] Re: put data to stdout (fpc vs. gcc)
Hi
I try your solutions and here are the results:
1.) TIP: set text buffer higher (using settextbuf) - RESULT: procedure breaks
later
2.) TIP: use flush() after writeln() - RESULT: procedure breaks on first
flush()
3.) TIP: convert first float to text and then put it out - RESULT: the same
breaks like the writeln()-included formating
4.) TIP: use sprintf form libc unit - RESULT: not tested, because the file
descriptors change(, isn't?)
5.) TIP: write your own writeln() - RESULT: not tested, because is to
difficult but very interesting
Here an information again: If I put the output with all informations and high
precision to /dev/null nothing breaks.
My solution is: I write only one information and I cut the precision like
writeln(stdout,out1:0:3). This works fine.
Thank's at all for your help!
regards,
Markus
--
C source:
for (i=0;in;i++) {
out1=(single) libout1[i];
out2=(single) libout2[i];
count+=1;
printf(%20.0f%15.5f%15.5f\n,count,out1,out2);}
--
fpc source:
for i:=0 to n do
begin
out1:=single(libout1[i]);
out2:=single(libout2[i]);
inc(count);
writeln(stdout, count:20, out1:15:5, out2:15:5); (* This will break! *)
end;
--
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Starting new threads
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Tom York wrote: By the way is NNTP forbidden? I would much rather use NNTP over a mailing list. Better stick to mailing list. NNTP means inviting all kinds of nonsense on the list. Having a small treshold (subscribing) is not bad. Michael. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Re: put data to stdout (fpc vs. gcc)
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi I try your solutions and here are the results: 1.) TIP: set text buffer higher (using settextbuf) - RESULT: procedure breaks later 2.) TIP: use flush() after writeln() - RESULT: procedure breaks on first flush() 3.) TIP: convert first float to text and then put it out - RESULT: the same breaks like the writeln()-included formating 4.) TIP: use sprintf form libc unit - RESULT: not tested, because the file descriptors change(, isn't?) 5.) TIP: write your own writeln() - RESULT: not tested, because is to difficult but very interesting It's hard to pull any conclusions from this without the full code. Sounds like a buffering problem, but this is far from sure. Michael. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] CheckSynchronize
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:49:39 +0200 Jonas Maebe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 21 jun 2007, at 18:39, Vincent Snijders wrote: And I do actually want to be as close as possible to the release code, but IMHO opnion the merge policy of the fpc team is too strict. Afaics none of the two issues listed on that wiki page are regressions. I therefore don't think it is unreasonable to not merge changes of which no one knows the overall effects 1 month before the final release, with not even a beta release in between. We have done such things before (like switching the compiler to executeprocess shortly before a release because dos.exec had 255 char limitations, and then after the release it turned out that in some not that uncommon situations executeprocess didn't work properly) and we learnt from those mistakes, which is the whole reason why we now have a release/merge procedure. I understand that. And it hurts. We have a fix now for a threading issue, and people cannot use it. What do you suggest for the next Lazarus release? Because of stabiliy reasons, we don't want to use snapshot or the fixes branch for releases. Will you release 2.2.2 with these (for the moment two merged revisions, one or two weeks after the 2.2.0. Then we can wait for 2.2.2. Otherwise it is better to have a patched 2.2.0, with a small number of controlled patches, rather than a 2.2.1 with tens of patches already waiting in trunk to be merged. Then I can hardly guarantee stability. The fact that these bugs are in fpc for years already is (for me) not a convincing reason to say, that we should wait until sometime in 2008 for the fix in a Lazarus release. Vincent ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] CheckSynchronize
On 21 jun 2007, at 19:41, Vincent Snijders wrote: We have done such things before (like switching the compiler to executeprocess shortly before a release because dos.exec had 255 char limitations, and then after the release it turned out that in some not that uncommon situations executeprocess didn't work properly) and we learnt from those mistakes, which is the whole reason why we now have a release/merge procedure. I understand that. And it hurts. Releasing 2.2.0 with a major bug because of merging one of those revisions would hurt me just as much. We have a fix now for a threading issue, and people cannot use it. What do you suggest for the next Lazarus release? Because of stabiliy reasons, we don't want to use snapshot or the fixes branch for releases. Will you release 2.2.2 with these (for the moment two merged revisions, one or two weeks after the 2.2.0. Then we can wait for 2.2.2. Otherwise it is better to have a patched 2.2.0, with a small number of controlled patches, rather than a 2.2.1 with tens of patches already waiting in trunk to be merged. Then I can hardly guarantee stability. We can merge those particular fixes first after 2.2.0 is released, then you can use that revision of 2.2.1 (we're not going to merge everything to be merged in one go from trunk into fixes_2_2 anyway, that would make isolating potential issues way too hard). Jonas ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] CheckSynchronize
On 21 jun 2007, at 18:39, Vincent Snijders wrote: And I do actually want to be as close as possible to the release code, but IMHO opnion the merge policy of the fpc team is too strict. Afaics none of the two issues listed on that wiki page are regressions. I therefore don't think it is unreasonable to not merge changes of which no one knows the overall effects 1 month before the final release, with not even a beta release in between. Currently, I don't see 2.2 being released before september (because of holidays, we are getting awfully close to july). So, - Maybe we should simply acknowledge that fact, and get that release as good as possible. - That also means postponing anything pretty much schedules it for 2008. (3 months between releases would be a record, at least since the 0.99.12c stuff) ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] CheckSynchronize
On 21 jun 2007, at 20:30, Marco van de Voort wrote: Currently, I don't see 2.2 being released before september (because of holidays, we are getting awfully close to july). Afaik everyone who is needed for release building is still available in the last week of July. So, - Maybe we should simply acknowledge that fact, and get that release as good as possible. Nobody will dispute that, regardless of when the release is. That's also not what the discussion is about. The question is whether it's better to risk introducing new unknown bugs by merging those particular patches than leaving those known defects in. - That also means postponing anything pretty much schedules it for 2008. (3 months between releases would be a record, at least since the 0.99.12c stuff) Regardless of whether we release in July, August or September, the next release will probably be close to 2008 anyway. Jonas ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] CheckSynchronize
On 21 jun 2007, at 20:30, Marco van de Voort wrote: Currently, I don't see 2.2 being released before september (because of holidays, we are getting awfully close to july). Afaik everyone who is needed for release building is still available in the last week of July. True, but rushing wouldn't do the release any good IMHO. So, - Maybe we should simply acknowledge that fact, and get that release as good as possible. Nobody will dispute that, regardless of when the release is. That's also not what the discussion is about. The question is whether it's better to risk introducing new unknown bugs by merging those particular patches than leaving those known defects in. As opposed to the risk that heavy users like mside and lazarus start using snapshots/own rolled releases quickly after a release has been made? Because that voids the whole release effort. - That also means postponing anything pretty much schedules it for 2008. (3 months between releases would be a record, at least since the 0.99.12c stuff) Regardless of whether we release in July, August or September, the next release will probably be close to 2008 anyway. Exactly. So postponing a fix for a known problem is pretty serious. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] CheckSynchronize
On 21 jun 2007, at 20:52, Marco van de Voort wrote:
On 21 jun 2007, at 20:30, Marco van de Voort wrote:
Afaik everyone who is needed for release building is still available
in the last week of July.
True, but rushing wouldn't do the release any good IMHO.
I don't think the end of July is rushing it, as that was the original
plan afaik. And if we delay the release, I think it's quite likely
that more such patches which are critical to certain groups of people
will pop up. The whole point of a release is to cut that off at some
point, let things settle down and get it out of the door.
Nobody will dispute that, regardless of when the release is. That's
also not what the discussion is about. The question is whether it's
better to risk introducing new unknown bugs by merging those
particular patches than leaving those known defects in.
As opposed to the risk that heavy users like mside and lazarus
start using
snapshots/own rolled releases quickly after a release has been made?
Both approaches absolutely have arguments in favour of them.
Because that voids the whole release effort.
I disagree. I think that at most, it can void the actual packaging
effort. The release effort is what enables them to have a stable
basis which they can modify with a few known patches to suit their
needs. Merging uncertain patches is what, in my eyes, voids release
efforts (because you can keep trying to stabilise forever if you do
things like that). It's obviously much more preferable if they don't
have to do that at all and if it's a make or break point, my
preferred option would be a second beta release at the end of July
(although in general I would not look forward to making another
installation package, another couple months of waiting, possibly more
critical patches popping up and possibly delaying again after that).
That said, you are clearly in favour of merging those patches, and so
is Vincent. I prefer not to do it, both because of past experiences
(as explained earlier), and because e.g. the resources patch already
had one unforeseen consequence (which was fortunately not that bad:
the version of ld.exe shipped with FPC 2.0.4 apparently cannot not
handle the resulting resources).
For all big endian users, merging the set rewrite could also be
argued, because without it {$packsets} is completely broken on big
endian in 2.1.x (so if you use it in 2.2.0, you have to put {$ifndef
FPC_BIG_ENDIAN} everywhere). There are some serious fixes to the
threading system which aren't merged (mantis 9016 -- we don't clean
up all resources allocated for terminateonfree threads under *nix --
that may even be a regression compared to 2.0.4, although a whole
bunch of other tthread stuff didn't work at all under *nix/2.0.4 and
overall the situation still improved)
I'm not trying to put up any veto here (nor do I *insist* on having
another beta release if they would be merged). I'm just trying to
explain my reasons for disliking the merging of them.
And there probably quite a few more patches which are quite vital to
several groups of people.
Jonas
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] GTK2 Lazarus Project, but I want QT.
Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho schrieb: Backtrace just for the record: [EMAIL PROTECTED] test]$ ./projecttest Gleitkomma-Ausnahme Floating point exception. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] GTK2 Lazarus Project, but I want QT.
If you're on Gentoo and enable the qt3support flag, no, you will not. On Thursday 21 June 2007 18:32, Alain Michaud wrote: Hi, I am currently running in KDE-3.4. I am going to ruin my system if I try to compile QT-4 ? thanks Alain On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 14:30 +0200, Daniël Mantione wrote: Op Thu, 21 Jun 2007, schreef Catalin Zamfir Alexandru: I may have the easiest job of them all. I'm updating my Gentoo QT to 4.3 which compiles the source, installs it and makes all necesary adjustments. Still compiling. 4 hours have passed and Qt is still compiling. QT takes a **very** long time to compile. Don't be surprised if it is 24 hours or so. Daniël ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] GTK2 Lazarus Project, but I want QT.
On 6/21/07, Alain Michaud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am currently running in KDE-3.4. I am going to ruin my system if I try to compile QT-4 ? AFAIK Qt 3 and Qt 4 can live side by side without problems, the libraries have different names, one should not interfere with the other. -- Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] CheckSynchronize
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 21:31:59 +0200
Jonas Maebe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nobody will dispute that, regardless of when the release is. That's
also not what the discussion is about. The question is whether it's
better to risk introducing new unknown bugs by merging those
particular patches than leaving those known defects in.
As opposed to the risk that heavy users like mside and lazarus
start using
snapshots/own rolled releases quickly after a release has been made?
Both approaches absolutely have arguments in favour of them.
Because that voids the whole release effort.
I disagree. I think that at most, it can void the actual packaging
effort. The release effort is what enables them to have a stable
basis which they can modify with a few known patches to suit their
needs. Merging uncertain patches is what, in my eyes, voids release
efforts (because you can keep trying to stabilise forever if you do
things like that). It's obviously much more preferable if they don't
have to do that at all and if it's a make or break point, my
preferred option would be a second beta release at the end of July
(although in general I would not look forward to making another
installation package, another couple months of waiting, possibly more
critical patches popping up and possibly delaying again after that).
I value the release procedure very much and that is why I don't want to base a
Lazarus release on a snapshot. I see the following options, start with the IMHO
most preferable to the least preferable:
A: merge those patches to the fixes branch now.
B: Second choice, merge them right after tagging 2.2.0, and tag that as 2.2.2
or 2.2.0.1, that we can use a tagged version for Lazarus releases.
C: If this is not possible, then I can keep a patch file for fpc 2.2.0
somewhere that I apply before buiding the fpc 2.2.0 version for Lazarus.
D: Tell people that until 2008 these are known issues with Lazarus releases,
but that these issues are fixed in snapshots. E.g. having version info and a
manifest does not work.
That said, you are clearly in favour of merging those patches, and so
is Vincent. I prefer not to do it, both because of past experiences
(as explained earlier), and because e.g. the resources patch already
had one unforeseen consequence (which was fortunately not that bad:
the version of ld.exe shipped with FPC 2.0.4 apparently cannot not
handle the resulting resources).
For the record, it was ld shipped with fpc 2.0.2, so it would not even have
been noticed if I made a proper 2.1.5 installation using the binutils from the
fpcbuild repository.
And I found about this issue, because I merged this patch to 2.1.5 in my local
copy to test it.
For all big endian users, merging the set rewrite could also be
argued, because without it {$packsets} is completely broken on big
endian in 2.1.x (so if you use it in 2.2.0, you have to put {$ifndef
FPC_BIG_ENDIAN} everywhere). There are some serious fixes to the
threading system which aren't merged (mantis 9016 -- we don't clean
up all resources allocated for terminateonfree threads under *nix --
that may even be a regression compared to 2.0.4, although a whole
bunch of other tthread stuff didn't work at all under *nix/2.0.4 and
overall the situation still improved)
I'm not trying to put up any veto here (nor do I *insist* on having
another beta release if they would be merged). I'm just trying to
explain my reasons for disliking the merging of them.
Well explained. I think it is clear you want to run minimal risks with fpc
2.2.0. I don't have the illusion that fpc 2.2.0 will have those fixes, now
let's see how we can have these fixes in a Lazarus release as soon as possible.
And there probably quite a few more patches which are quite vital to
several groups of people.
Let's gather them in the wiki page. To be eligible, they need not be too large
and have to heavy inpact (e.g. merging the internal linker to fpc 2.0.4 would
have been too large and I think the same goes for the set handling rewrite).
I want to test them as soon as possible with the fixes branch. I will merge
those patches them in the lazarus snapshot packages with fpc 2.1.5, currently
win32, win64 and i386-darwin, so testing can start as soon as possible.
Do you want me to mark the version of those fpc executables in any special way?
2.1.5.1? 2.1.5.Lazarus?
Vincent
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
[fpc-pascal] TFPTimer component.
Hello, Some time ago, Graeme Geldenhuys (hope I spelled this correct from memory) posted some TFPTimer component to this list. The component was changed so another timer mechanism can be plugged in, and the result has been added to the FCL. A small test program is provided. The Lazarus people may want to have a look at it: this component can be used in other than GUI programs. In time, it may be useful to recode TTimer so it bases itself on TFPTimer, and to use a native driver mechanism when a GUI is available. With my thanks to Graeme for his contribution. Michael. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: Re: [fpc-pascal] Documentation for sqldb
Joost van der Sluis wrote: IN principle you can set ReadOnly to false and ParseSQL to true. That way sqldb tries to parse your query. If it's a simple 'select * from table' the TSQLQuery will be updateable. It automatically generates update/delete and insert queries. For the 'where' clause is uses by default the primary key of the table. (That's a setting, upWhereKeyOnly) For example: 'delete * from table where pk=:old_pk' If you edit some data, those changes will be stored in an updatebuffer. With TSQLQuery.CancelUpdates all those changes are lost. But if you call .ApplyUpdates, it will execute one query for every changed record. (That could be a insert, update or delete query) So if I change some field values and post the record, that changed data goes into the update buffer - of TBufDataset ? I should then be able to accumulate a few changes of these, and then, in code, call TSQLQuery.ApplyUpdate, and it should be sent to the database ? Should this also commit at the database level, or do I have to do this ? (I think I tried this, but didn't pursue it very far, because I wasn't sure if it even should work) Would it be feasible / sensible to call ApplyUpdate from an AfterPost event handler ? Those are the basics. If you have questions, ask them here. And if you have any time, please document it somewhere on the wiki. ;) I will, if I get to the point of thinking I understand it enough to not make a fool of myself! John ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
[fpc-pascal] Re: Lua and Freepascal and ARM
josepascual [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi Everyone I have made a example with lua inside freepascal. I have test it in i386 fpc 2.1.4 with no problem ann in ARM with fpc 2.1.4. I hav a problem: I have tried to debug it (gdb): Hi Jose :-) I can't help you with your problem, but I am curious... 1)is your ARM system using Linux? 2)for Lua under ARM, are you using dynamic linking or static linking? For dynamic linking, where did you get your Lua 'DLL' from, and for static linking, how did you do this? I would like to get into using Lua under arm-linux myself (already used Lua and freepacal under Win32 with no problems) cheers, Paul. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] CheckSynchronize
On 21 jun 2007, at 20:52, Marco van de Voort wrote: ... That said, you are clearly in favour of merging those patches, and so is Vincent. ... I'm a simple echo of Vincent. The point is that I see Lazarus more or less as the (only) Tier 1 customer. They earned that right by their feedback over the years. If they can't use the release straight up, I have some doubts about the processes use. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
