[fpc-devel] OVERRIDEVERSIONCHECK catch 22?

2014-03-02 Thread Reinier Olislagers
With a trunk starting compiler this: make FPC=/home/odroid/working/fpcbootstrap/ppcarm_intermediate --directory=/home/odroid/working/fpctrunk OVERRIDEVERSIONCHECK=1 OPT=-dFPC_ARMHF -Cparmv7a -CaEABIHF -CfVFPv3 gives You have overriden the starting compiler versioncheck while using starting

Re: [fpc-devel] OVERRIDEVERSIONCHECK catch 22?

2014-03-02 Thread Marco van de Voort
In our previous episode, Reinier Olislagers said: You have overriden the starting compiler versioncheck while using starting compiler version 2.7.1. This situation is not supported and strange things and errors may happen. Remove OVERRIDEVERSIONCHECK=1 to fix this. and stops. It shouldn't

Re: [fpc-devel] OVERRIDEVERSIONCHECK catch 22?

2014-03-02 Thread Reinier Olislagers
On 02/03/2014 10:51, Marco van de Voort wrote: In our previous episode, Reinier Olislagers said: You have overriden the starting compiler versioncheck while using starting compiler version 2.7.1. This situation is not supported and strange things and errors may happen. Remove

Re: [fpc-devel] Extended($FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF) = -1?

2014-03-02 Thread Ewald
On 01 Mar 2014, at 18:17, Jonas Maebe wrote: On 01 Mar 2014, at 01:19, Ewald wrote: That is perfectly true. But shouldn't the most basic behaviour of a language be at the very least intuitive? It should be well-defined and consistent. One of Pascal's basic principles is that the

Re: [fpc-devel] Extended($FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF) = -1?

2014-03-02 Thread Jonas Maebe
On 02 Mar 2014, at 14:30, Ewald wrote: On 01 Mar 2014, at 18:17, Jonas Maebe wrote: Talking about principles: If hexadecimal is actually used to represent bit patterns (as Hans-Peter Diettrich wrote), then the decision to use a signed type here seems to violate this (represent

Re: [fpc-devel] Extended($FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF) = -1?

2014-03-02 Thread Hans-Peter Diettrich
Ewald schrieb: Talking about principles: If hexadecimal is actually used to represent bit patterns (as Hans-Peter Diettrich wrote), then the decision to use a signed type here seems to violate this (represent bitpatterns) principle, since the highest bit in a signed number has a different

Re: [fpc-devel] Extended($FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF) = -1?

2014-03-02 Thread Ewald
On 03 Mar 2014, at 00:29, Hans-Peter Diettrich wrote: Ewald schrieb: It seems like sticking to one principle (signed integer as much as possible) actually breaks another principle (bitpattern). Wirth and his Pascal language are well designed with signed types above all, and unsigned