Re: [fpc-devel] Branching 2.4.2 is imminent

2010-05-15 Thread Luiz Americo Pereira Camara
Joost van der Sluis escreveu: On Fri, 2010-05-14 at 23:52 +0200, Marco van de Voort wrote: In our previous episode, Luiz Americo Pereira Camara said: By this message I would like to encourage everybody to test recent snapshots as much as possible, and also to see if previously made fixe

[fpc-devel] order of tar parameters during make zipinstall

2010-05-15 Thread Den Jean
Hi, make zipinstall does not work for my busybox tar the call to tar is made like this: /bin/tar cfvz /svn/fpc/fpc-2.5.1.arm-linux.tar.gz * but my system tar wants the option 'f' right in front of the target filename. Makefile contains: ZIPCMD_ZIP:=$(TARPROG) cf$(TAROPT) $(ZIPDESTFILE) *

Re: [fpc-devel] Branching 2.4.2 is imminent

2010-05-15 Thread Joost van der Sluis
On Fri, 2010-05-14 at 23:52 +0200, Marco van de Voort wrote: > In our previous episode, Luiz Americo Pereira Camara said: > > > By this message I would like to encourage everybody to test recent > > > snapshots as much as possible, and also to see if previously made fixes > > > are > > > propagate

Re: [fpc-devel] Troubles with FPDOC in 2.5.1 and 2.4.1

2010-05-15 Thread Marco van de Voort
In our previous episode, Mattias Gaertner said: > > > > BTW, > The parser parses expression as whole and only stores the whole > expression as string. This is done because in order to parse an > expression you need to resolve identifiers, because operators are > context sensitive. A simple parser

Re: [fpc-devel] Troubles with FPDOC in 2.5.1 and 2.4.1

2010-05-15 Thread Mattias Gaertner
On Sat, 15 May 2010 14:33:07 +0200 Mattias Gaertner wrote: > On Sat, 15 May 2010 14:00:47 +0200 (CEST) > mar...@stack.nl (Marco van de Voort) wrote: > > > In our previous episode, Mattias Gaertner said: > > > Yes. > > > I think implementation needs good comments. The local types and > > > variab

Re: [fpc-devel] Troubles with FPDOC in 2.5.1 and 2.4.1

2010-05-15 Thread Mattias Gaertner
On Sat, 15 May 2010 14:00:47 +0200 (CEST) mar...@stack.nl (Marco van de Voort) wrote: > In our previous episode, Mattias Gaertner said: > > Yes. > > I think implementation needs good comments. The local types and > > variables don't need fpdoc docs, do they? > > If someone wants to use fpdoc for i

Re: [fpc-devel] Troubles with FPDOC in 2.5.1 and 2.4.1

2010-05-15 Thread Marco van de Voort
In our previous episode, Mattias Gaertner said: > Yes. > I think implementation needs good comments. The local types and > variables don't need fpdoc docs, do they? > If someone wants to use fpdoc for implementation, maybe it should > be made optional? Mattias, what did you use for testing? makesk