On Tuesday 20 of December 2011 23:35:52 Den Jean wrote:
> On Sunday 18 December 2011 14:05:00 Jonas Maebe wrote:
> > since Darwin/i386 also requires a 16-byte aligned stack
>
> Does this mean I can drop these stack alignment options for Osx 32 and 64
> bit? Anyhow my old OsX has gcc 4.0.1 and does
On Tuesday 20 December 2011 23:51:28 Jonas Maebe wrote:
> Yes. Any program that does not have a 16 byte alliged stack on Mac OS
> X/i386 will crash almost immediately, because the dynamic linker enforces
> it. You also don't need it on any x86-64 platform, because they all have
> always required a
On 20 Dec 2011, at 23:35, Den Jean wrote:
> On Sunday 18 December 2011 14:05:00 Jonas Maebe wrote:
>> since Darwin/i386 also requires a 16-byte aligned stack
>
> Does this mean I can drop these stack alignment options for Osx 32 and 64 bit?
Yes. Any program that does not have a 16 byte alliged
On Sunday 18 December 2011 14:05:00 Jonas Maebe wrote:
> since Darwin/i386 also requires a 16-byte aligned stack
Does this mean I can drop these stack alignment options for Osx 32 and 64 bit?
Anyhow my old OsX has gcc 4.0.1 and does not have all these options.
It has mstackrealign but not the -min
Den 20-12-2011 21:51, Geoffrey Barton skrev:
I have been trying to cross-compile arm embedded for a cortexm3 using 2.6.0rc1.
I had this working previously with 2.4.0 and stellaris controllers.
Following the instructions on the wiki page 'TARGET_Embedded' and adding
suitable devices into cpuinf
Polymorphism and Namespaces don't work.
http://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=20940
Is a fix something I can expect shortly? Just want to know how
serious the issue is or if I should work around.
Thanks
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.free
I have been trying to cross-compile arm embedded for a cortexm3 using 2.6.0rc1.
I had this working previously with 2.4.0 and stellaris controllers.
Following the instructions on the wiki page 'TARGET_Embedded' and adding
suitable devices into cpuinfo etc. where they have been missed out, I can b
On Tuesday 20 December 2011 10:36:12 Sven Barth wrote:
> Ok, that doesn't help me then, because I'm directly using OpenCV which I
> didn't (and don't want to) compile myself.
that is why I wrote that to interface with library binaries of a distribution
(compiled by gcc),fpc does not provide an op
On 20 Dec 2011, at 11:23, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 11:12:12 +0100
Jonas Maebe wrote:
Looking over the Lazarus commit log, I noticed a small error on that
page: the directive for pointer arithmetic is called {$pointermath
on/
off}, not {$modeswitch cs_pointermath} (corre
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 11:12:12 +0100
Jonas Maebe wrote:
>
> On 20 Dec 2011, at 10:05, Sven Barth wrote:
>
> > You also might want to read this:
> > http://wiki.freepascal.org/FPC_JVM/Language#New_language_features
>
> Looking over the Lazarus commit log, I noticed a small error on that
> page
On 20 Dec 2011, at 10:05, Sven Barth wrote:
You also might want to read this:
http://wiki.freepascal.org/FPC_JVM/Language#New_language_features
Looking over the Lazarus commit log, I noticed a small error on that
page: the directive for pointer arithmetic is called {$pointermath on/
off},
Am 20.12.2011 10:34, schrieb zeljko:
On Tuesday 20 of December 2011 09:52:20 Sven Barth wrote:
> Am 19.12.2011 10:02, schrieb Den Jean:
> > On Monday 19 December 2011 08:04:30 zeljko wrote:
> >> How ?
> >
> > The binding now aligns the stack before calling the Qt libraries
>
> Would
On Tuesday 20 of December 2011 09:52:20 Sven Barth wrote:
> Am 19.12.2011 10:02, schrieb Den Jean:
> > On Monday 19 December 2011 08:04:30 zeljko wrote:
> >> How ?
> >
> > The binding now aligns the stack before calling the Qt libraries
>
> Would you please post an example how exactly you aligned
Am 20.12.2011 09:53, schrieb Mattias Gaertner:
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 12:51:29 +0400
Alexander Shishkin wrote:
20.12.2011 4:00, Paul Ishenin пишет:
18.12.2011 20:45, Jonas Maebe wrote:
And final fields.
Final methods can't be overriden in the descendants. But what are final
fields for?
It
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 12:51:29 +0400
Alexander Shishkin wrote:
> 20.12.2011 4:00, Paul Ishenin пишет:
> > 18.12.2011 20:45, Jonas Maebe wrote:
> >
> >> And final fields.
> >
> > Final methods can't be overriden in the descendants. But what are final
> > fields for?
> >
> >
> It`s something like wri
Am 19.12.2011 10:02, schrieb Den Jean:
On Monday 19 December 2011 08:04:30 zeljko wrote:
How ?
The binding now aligns the stack before calling the Qt libraries
Would you please post an example how exactly you aligned the stack?
Regards,
Sven
___
f
Am 19.12.2011 13:14, schrieb Henry Vermaak:
On 18/12/11 12:37, Den Jean wrote:
Hi,
to interface with c libraries containing SSE code,
the stack must be aligned to 16 bytes.
Currently the default -mpreferred-stack-boundary=num of gcc provides
for this.
However current fpc 2.4.4 does not align
20.12.2011 4:00, Paul Ishenin пишет:
18.12.2011 20:45, Jonas Maebe wrote:
And final fields.
Final methods can't be overriden in the descendants. But what are final
fields for?
Best regards,
Paul Ishenin
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.fre
Am 20.12.2011 01:00, schrieb Paul Ishenin:
18.12.2011 20:45, Jonas Maebe wrote:
And final fields.
Final methods can't be overriden in the descendants. But what are final
fields for?
AFAIK final fields can only be assigned once in the constructor (or in
the declaration of which the code is
19 matches
Mail list logo
