I see that this should not be discussed here :) . Thanks !
-Michael
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
I did not yet try or consider to use the GUI part of MSEGUJI, as my
intention is about doing embedded stuff (e.g. with NoGUIApplication). So
sorry for may ignorance about this seemingly already thoroughly
discussed issue.
___
fpc-devel maillist -
On Mon, 2009-11-16 at 00:26 +0200, Juha Manninen wrote:
Hi,
I installed FPC 2.4.0 rc1 from rpm packages for OpenSuse 11.2.
I can't install the source package fpc-2.4.0-0.rc1.src.rpm though.
rpm -i fpc-2.4.0-0.rc1.src.rpm
or
rpm -i --force fpc-2.4.0-0.rc1.src.rpm
give a warning about
Michael Schnell wrote:
So MSE-GUI creates it's own Widget set instead of using something like
GTK. Is this really advantageous ?
Definitely - depending on your needs. That's the whole reason we started
fpGUI Toolkit as well. LCL, GTK, etc simply did not do what we needed.
In creating our own
I see.
Thanks,
-Michael
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Maybe it is something interesting
http://www.linux-kongress.org/2009/slides/compiler_survey_felix_von_leitner.pdf
--
Darek
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Hello FPC developers
I've been using Algol-like languages since the times of Algol '60.
In general I'm rather happy with FPC, but I miss a feature which I found
in Intel's PLM languages. I'd like to submit it to see if there's a
chance it could be introduced in FPC.
The feature is the
Giuliano Colla wrote:
var
Pfoo: pointer;
foo: any valid FPC Type based Pfoo;
or
foo: based Pfoo any valid FPC type;
.
Pfoo: pointer;
PBfoo: PByte absolute Pfoo;
PIfoo: PInteger absolute Pfoo;
I don't see the difference between based and absolute, except order of
keywords?
When I execute a small program which links to a dynamic library, ld complains:
cha...@devmachine:/data/test/src/shlib$ ./TestExe
hello 42
Inconsistency detected by ld.so: dl-fini.c: 195: _dl_fini: Assertion
`ns != 0 || i == nloaded' failed!
This is on Debian Lenny (Free Pascal Compiler version
Micha Nelissen ha scritto:
Giuliano Colla wrote:
var
Pfoo: pointer;
foo: any valid FPC Type based Pfoo;
or
foo: based Pfoo any valid FPC type;
.
Pfoo: pointer;
PBfoo: PByte absolute Pfoo;
PIfoo: PInteger absolute Pfoo;
I don't see the difference between based and absolute,
On 16 Nov 2009, at 12:45, Hans-Peter Suter wrote:
This is on Debian Lenny (Free Pascal Compiler version 2.2.2
[2008/07/30] for i386
, GNU ld (GNU Binutils for Debian) 2.18.0.20080103). On my Mac the code works.
You may want to use at least FPC 2.2.4, several bugs related to dynamic
Giuliano Colla wrote:
With absolute you need a) to declare an extra type (PByte, or
Declaring an extra type is one of those things that make Pascal what
it is; declaring before use.
whatever), b) to explicitly access the variable through the pointer
(PBfoo^ as opposed to foo). But if the
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 12:17:23 +0100, Micha Nelissen wrote about Re:
[fpc-devel] Could FPC add the PLM based construct?:
Giuliano Colla wrote:
var
Pfoo: pointer;
foo: any valid FPC Type based Pfoo;
or
foo: based Pfoo any valid FPC type;
.
Pfoo: pointer;
PBfoo: PByte
On 16 Nov 2009, at 02:01, Martin wrote:
so is their an official way to get hold of the refcount?
No, there isn't.
Jonas
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
2009/11/16 Jonas Maebe jonas.ma...@elis.ugent.be:
You may want to use at least FPC 2.2.4, several bugs related to dynamic
libraries on *nix platforms were fixed there.
Thanks for your answer! - I updated to FPC 2.2.4 (*) but the
inconsistency message is still there. The same happened when I
Micha Nelissen ha scritto:
Giuliano Colla wrote:
With absolute you need a) to declare an extra type (PByte, or
Declaring an extra type is one of those things that make Pascal what
it is; declaring before use.
You mean that declaring twice is smarter than declaring just once?
You need two
Dariusz Mazur wrote:
Maybe it is something interesting
http://www.linux-kongress.org/2009/slides/compiler_survey_felix_von_leitner.pdf
Seems that LLVM doesn't do so well, but not as bad as Microsoft :P. GCC
seems to be quite good.
Micha
___
Matej Spiller-Muys wrote on Mon, 16 Nov 2009:
I would love fpc to be based on LLVM backend. C bindings are ok, but
wouldn't it be better to fix support for cppclass inside fpc (since it is
already there) and create more proper C++ headers.
C interfacing works today and has been very
C interfacing works today and has been very thoroughly tested. cppclass
only works, for very basic things, since 2 days ago or so. Unless someone
enjoys
debugging a new code generator and a new external language interfacing
paradigm at the same time, that does not sound like a very good idea to
Matej Spiller-Muys wrote on Mon, 16 Nov 2009:
C interfacing works today and has been very thoroughly tested. cppclass
only works, for very basic things, since 2 days ago or so. Unless someone
enjoys
debugging a new code generator and a new external language interfacing
paradigm at the same
You also get breaking backwards compatibility with a lot of existing
Delphi code for free. I repeat: you really cannot underestimate the amount
of
implementation details that existing Delphi code depends on, and people
already complain about FPC's incompatibility with those implementation
On 17 Nov 2009, at 07:31, Matej Spiller-Muys wrote:
I have no idea. All I know that's slightly related is the alioth computer
language benchmark game (with the stress on game), where you have at least
both FPC and GCC results.
Yup, the FPC factor is 2x-10x slower.
That's because you are
Jonas Maebe schreef:
On 17 Nov 2009, at 07:31, Matej Spiller-Muys wrote:
I have no idea. All I know that's slightly related is the alioth computer
language benchmark game (with the stress on game), where you have at least
both FPC and GCC results.
Yup, the FPC factor is 2x-10x slower.
On 17 Nov 2009, at 08:18, Vincent Snijders wrote:
Jonas Maebe schreef:
And as mentioned before, it's with the stress on game: the results on that
site depend on almost as much on the implementation effort that people have
put in optimizing the source code for their language as it does on
24 matches
Mail list logo
