Sven Barth wrote:
On 19.10.2012 18:16, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
Pierre Free Pascal wrote:
PS: Trunk for sparc is currently broken (I added some
checks related to nostackframe modifier, ad
some CPU do not conform to the idea that
the stacksize should be zero in that cas
On 19.10.2012 18:16, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
Pierre Free Pascal wrote:
PS: Trunk for sparc is currently broken (I added some
checks related to nostackframe modifier, ad
some CPU do not conform to the idea that
the stacksize should be zero in that case...)
Thanks, note
Thanks, I just filed the bug: id 23165.
--
Ewald
On 10/19/12 16:11, Jonas Maebe wrote:
>> I see... On the other hand, documentation
>> (http://www.freepascal.org/docs-html/prog/progsu160.html) says that
>> MemSize() should return the total amount of memory available for
>> allocation; and can re
In our previous episode, Mark Morgan Lloyd said:
> > It's able to build and install itself, I note that the build was
> > slightly faster than 2.6.1. I'll run the test suite and compare against
> > 2.6 but for various reasons I don't want to do that on my main system.
> > Anything specific you wa
Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
Pierre Free Pascal wrote:
PS: Trunk for sparc is currently broken (I added some
checks related to nostackframe modifier, ad
some CPU do not conform to the idea that
the stacksize should be zero in that case...)
Thanks, noted. Yell when you want me to test something.
Jonas Maebe wrote:
On 19 Oct 2012, at 15:24, Sven Barth wrote:
But I don't know what state Vis is in especially since I don't know what VM it
does use exactly.
That port was started by Carl-Eric Codere, and afaik VIS was a "Virtual Instruction
Set" (= VIS) he invented himself.
That I didn
Michael Schnell wrote:
As my system obviously does not run Linux, I hope I might be able to
provide some kind of infrastructure that allows to decently execute FPC
generated files. (This maybe in fact is similar to what QEMU does -
without the code-interpreter.)
I've never really tried to ge
On 10/19/2012 04:22 PM, Marco van de Voort wrote:
MIPS is said to have lower licensing costs than ARM.
Its also said to use less die space than ARM, but provide a lower
performance/clock relation.
Besides the already mentioned implementations, multiple dedicated chips,
and the rather univer
Marco van de Voort wrote:
In our previous episode, Mark Morgan Lloyd said:
68K is alive thanks to Coldfire etc.
Well. I would like to run it on the real thing. 68040/40 the same one as
1.0.x did :-)
As I said the other day, having real hardware available is a big
incentive to firing somethi
On 10/19/2012 03:29 PM, Sven Barth wrote:
It would be easier if you'd use the C code from within FPC code.
I don't think I can easily do this, as there is a booting system called
"Leash" provided by Innovasic, that finally runs the user code
(everything is compiled to a single loadable/executab
In our previous episode, Sven Barth said:
> >> 68K is alive thanks to Coldfire etc.
> >
> > Well. I would like to run it on the real thing. 68040/40 the same one as
> > 1.0.x did :-)
>
> Do you have a system with such a CPU? If so it would be nice - if time
> permits - if you could test a bit.
I
In our previous episode, Sven Barth said:
> > make it a closed system for their turnkey products. MIPS is alive,
> > courtesy of the Chinese who- I'm told- are now shipping good-value kit.
> > 68K is alive thanks to Coldfire etc. IA-64 is alive but on life-support.
> > IBM mainframes are alive, tha
On 19 Oct 2012, at 14:44, Ewald wrote:
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 10:43:43 +0200, Jonas Maebe
wrote:
As you explain, the FPC heap manager is what requires this
information.
The MemSize function is standard functionality of the FPC heap
managers,
and so is checking whether the correct size is s
Am 19.10.2012 15:53, schrieb Marco van de Voort:
In our previous episode, Mark Morgan Lloyd said:
68K is alive thanks to Coldfire etc.
Well. I would like to run it on the real thing. 68040/40 the same one as
1.0.x did :-)
Do you have a system with such a CPU? If so it would be nice - if time
Am 19.10.2012 15:47, schrieb Mark Morgan Lloyd:
Sven Barth wrote:
To my surprise I've got an Alpha system, but my understanding is that
nobody's making silicon any more. Since Chinese manufacturers appear to
have settled on MIPS as their non-x86 of choice, I don't see much future
for it.
That
In our previous episode, Mark Morgan Lloyd said:
> 68K is alive thanks to Coldfire etc.
Well. I would like to run it on the real thing. 68040/40 the same one as
1.0.x did :-)
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepas
Sven Barth wrote:
To my surprise I've got an Alpha system, but my understanding is that
nobody's making silicon any more. Since Chinese manufacturers appear to
have settled on MIPS as their non-x86 of choice, I don't see much future
for it.
That nobody is producing Alpha (or Alpha-like) chips
Am 19.10.2012 15:46, schrieb Jonas Maebe:
On 19 Oct 2012, at 15:24, Sven Barth wrote:
But I don't know what state Vis is in especially since I don't know what VM it
does use exactly.
That port was started by Carl-Eric Codere, and afaik VIS was a "Virtual Instruction
Set" (= VIS) he invente
On 19 Oct 2012, at 15:24, Sven Barth wrote:
> But I don't know what state Vis is in especially since I don't know what VM
> it does use exactly.
That port was started by Carl-Eric Codere, and afaik VIS was a "Virtual
Instruction Set" (= VIS) he invented himself.
Jonas
Am 19.10.2012 15:15, schrieb Michael Schnell:
On 10/19/2012 01:23 PM, Sven Barth wrote:
The question is in how far the Fido is compatible with the Motorola CPUs.
It's nearly 100% code-bit compatible with the 332 (aka CPU32), there are
some additions to provide multi-threading and power-Managem
Am 19.10.2012 15:13, schrieb Mark Morgan Lloyd:
Sven Barth wrote:
[This should have gone to the list, instead of Florian directly]
On 18.10.2012 20:55, Florian Klämpfl wrote:
> Am 18.10.2012 13:24, schrieb Pierre Free Pascal:
>> Are you resurrecting m68k port?
>>
>> Just a guess, of cours
On 10/19/2012 03:16 PM, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
You're wrong ;-)
I do like this fact :-) :-) :-) .
-Michael
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Michael Schnell wrote:
On 10/19/2012 02:34 PM, Sven Barth wrote:
How do you mean that?
From what I read in the forum I understand that someone is really
interested and maybe working on it, but it's not yet usable out of the
box. Am I wrong ?
You're wrong ;-)
--
Mark Morgan Lloyd
markML
In our previous episode, Sven Barth said:
> >>
> >
> > From what I read in the forum I understand that someone is really
> > interested and maybe working on it, but it's not yet usable out of the
> > box. Am I wrong ?
>
> It runs enough that we already have automatic test results for MIPS and
>
On 10/19/2012 01:23 PM, Sven Barth wrote:
The question is in how far the Fido is compatible with the Motorola CPUs.
It's nearly 100% code-bit compatible with the 332 (aka CPU32), there are
some additions to provide multi-threading and power-Management (e.g. the
"trapx" and "sleep" instructions
On 10/19/2012 03:06 PM, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
It looked pretty darned good when I was running it under Qemu two days
ago.
Nice ! good to know...
-Michael
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailm
Sven Barth wrote:
[This should have gone to the list, instead of Florian directly]
On 18.10.2012 20:55, Florian Klämpfl wrote:
> Am 18.10.2012 13:24, schrieb Pierre Free Pascal:
>> Are you resurrecting m68k port?
>>
>> Just a guess, of course...
>
> Too late, but it would have been my gu
On 10/19/2012 03:01 PM, Sven Barth wrote:
It runs enough that we already have automatic test results for MIPS
and MIPSel
Great !
I will check it once I will get a prototype with a PIC32 (supposedly not
before 2014).
-Michael
___
fpc-devel mailli
Michael Schnell wrote:
On 10/19/2012 02:10 PM, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
Pray tell.
AFAIK, MIPS has not completely seen the light of day.
I fell this would be a really interesting Architecture, as e.g.
Microchip adopted it for PIC32 and they are aggressively developing more
and more chips o
Am 19.10.2012 14:46, schrieb Michael Schnell:
On 10/19/2012 02:34 PM, Sven Barth wrote:
How do you mean that?
From what I read in the forum I understand that someone is really
interested and maybe working on it, but it's not yet usable out of the
box. Am I wrong ?
It runs enough that we a
Am 19.10.2012 13:10, schrieb Michael Schnell:
> On 10/18/2012 05:58 PM, Sven Barth wrote:
>> Pierre was right. M68k is BACK!
> GREAT ! Thanks a lot.
>
> We just developed a board featuring a "Fido" chip by Innovasic. The
> prototype is sitting on my desk since the beginning of this week.
>
> Fido
On 10/19/2012 02:34 PM, Sven Barth wrote:
How do you mean that?
From what I read in the forum I understand that someone is really
interested and maybe working on it, but it's not yet usable out of the
box. Am I wrong ?
-Michael
___
fpc-devel mai
I see... On the other hand, documentation
(http://www.freepascal.org/docs-html/prog/progsu160.html) says that
MemSize() should return the total amount of memory available for
allocation; and can return 0 in case this functionality is not supported.
In contrast, the RTL docs postulate that MemSize(
Am 19.10.2012 14:24, schrieb Michael Schnell:
On 10/19/2012 02:10 PM, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
Pray tell.
AFAIK, MIPS has not completely seen the light of day.
How do you mean that?
Regards,
Sven
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepa
On 10/19/2012 02:10 PM, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
Pray tell.
AFAIK, MIPS has not completely seen the light of day.
I fell this would be a really interesting Architecture, as e.g.
Microchip adopted it for PIC32 and they are aggressively developing more
and more chips on that base. I heard abo
[This should have gone to the list, instead of Florian directly]
On 18.10.2012 20:55, Florian Klämpfl wrote:
> Am 18.10.2012 13:24, schrieb Pierre Free Pascal:
>> Are you resurrecting m68k port?
>>
>> Just a guess, of course...
>
> Too late, but it would have been my guess as well. The tale mis
Florian Klämpfl wrote:
Am 18.10.2012 13:24, schrieb Pierre Free Pascal:
Are you resurrecting m68k port?
Just a guess, of course...
Too late, but it would have been my guess as well. The tale misses only
the very sad part about the two children who never made it to life ;(
Pray tell.
One w
On 10/18/2012 05:58 PM, Sven Barth wrote:
Pierre was right. M68k is BACK!
GREAT ! Thanks a lot.
We just developed a board featuring a "Fido" chip by Innovasic. The
prototype is sitting on my desk since the beginning of this week.
Fido is a very nice upgrade to the Mortorola 68332 chip
(har
On 18 Oct 2012, at 20:10, Ewald wrote:
> In the cmem unit I see that there is always some extra room allocated
> where the size in bytes of the requested memory block is stored. Also I
> noticted that this size is never really used.
>
> While I do see the point of the field (e.g. checking for ri
Hello,
In the cmem unit I see that there is always some extra room allocated
where the size in bytes of the requested memory block is stored. Also I
noticted that this size is never really used.
While I do see the point of the field (e.g. checking for right size
parameter in FreeMemSize or some o
waldo kitty wrote:
On 10/18/2012 13:22, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
Sven Barth wrote:
But now the solution (I can't hold it back any longer myself ^^):
Pierre was
right. M68k is BACK!
Nicely done.
but I also plan to test Aranym (which emulates a M68040)
I was impressed by it, unpretentious
Pierre Free Pascal wrote:
PS: Trunk for sparc is currently broken (I added some
checks related to nostackframe modifier, ad
some CPU do not conform to the idea that
the stacksize should be zero in that case...)
Thanks, noted. Yell when you want me to test something.
This should now be fixed
42 matches
Mail list logo
