On Sun, 30 Mar 2014, Martin Frb wrote:
On 30/03/2014 14:35, Jonas Maebe wrote:
On 30/03/14 15:24, Martin Frb wrote:
The below program compiles fine (and generates no warning (fpc 2.6.2 /
win 32)
It only compiles fine with the (default) {$t-}. If you add {$t+}, it
doesn't compile. Without
On Sun, 30 Mar 2014, Howard Page-Clark wrote:
Not sure if this warrants a bug report or not.
In the FPImage.pp unit of the fcl-image package file extension data is
stored, but the sources misspell this term as extention.
in the field FExtention (line 224)
in the properties Extentions (line
On 31/03/2014 07:30, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
Everything warrants a bugreport, just so we do not forget to fix it.
Done, report 25949.
Howard
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
On 31/03/2014 07:28, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
On Sun, 30 Mar 2014, Martin Frb wrote:
Slight change, and I get
Fatal: Compilation aborted
procedure Foo(var c: array of integer; var c1: PA);
begin
writeln( (@c)^[1] );
If you are counting on the implicit pointer=array as in C, then
On 31 Mar 2014, at 14:53, Martin Frb wrote:
But this is not about the question if this works. It would be fine
if it gave a proper error. But an Internal Error? That seems to be
a bug.
You said that you got Fatal: Compilation aborted, not that you got
an internal error. Internal errors
On 31/03/2014 14:07, Jonas Maebe wrote:
On 31 Mar 2014, at 14:53, Martin Frb wrote:
But this is not about the question if this works. It would be fine if
it gave a proper error. But an Internal Error? That seems to be a bug.
You said that you got Fatal: Compilation aborted, not that you got
Just asking this again, as I did not get any answer yet?
Is that the indented behaviour, and if so what is the reasoning for it?
Original Message
Subject:overload question (variant vs enum subrange)
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 19:48:42 +
From: Martin Frb
Another question that never got answered. Yet I would expect, that
either it is implemented with intend, then someone must know.
Or it is a bug then that should be checked?
If no one knows, shall I assume it is a bug, and report it?
Original Message
Subject:
On 31/03/2014 14:28, Martin Frb wrote:
Shortened example:
program project1;
{$t+}
var
a : array of integer;
procedure Foo(var c: array of integer);
begin
writeln( (@c)^[1] );
readln;
end;
begin
SetLength(a,5);
a[0]:= 100;
a[1]:= 101;
foo(a);
end.
This compiles here (FPC
On 31/03/2014 16:42, Howard Page-Clark wrote:
This compiles here (FPC 2.6.5, Win32), and produces the output 101
with no errors.
You are right, I just run with the setting I have in my IDE, without
further testing.
Just testing the compilation, not running the reslt for now:
This is
On 31/03/2014 16:54, Martin Frb wrote:
C:\FPC\rel_2_6_4\gw\bin\i386-win32\fpc.exe -Cr project1.lpr
Compiling project1.lpr
Fatal: Compilation aborted
An unhandled exception occurred at $004B352B :
EAccessViolation : Access violation
$004B352B
$00440720
$004E9F72
$004EC4B8
$004EC4CC
31.03.2014 17:32, Martin Frb пишет:
Just asking this again, as I did not get any answer yet?
Is that the indented behaviour, and if so what is the reasoning for it?
This behavior is hardly intended.
To get clues about what's going on, you can compile the compiler with
OPT=-dEXTDEBUG,
then
On 31/03/2014 20:29, Sergei Gorelkin wrote:
31.03.2014 17:32, Martin Frb пишет:
Just asking this again, as I did not get any answer yet?
Is that the indented behaviour, and if so what is the reasoning for it?
This behavior is hardly intended.
To get clues about what's going on, you can
31.03.2014 23:46, Martin Frb пишет:
On 31/03/2014 20:29, Sergei Gorelkin wrote:
31.03.2014 17:32, Martin Frb пишет:
Just asking this again, as I did not get any answer yet?
Is that the indented behaviour, and if so what is the reasoning for it?
This behavior is hardly intended.
To get
C:\FPC\SVN\fpc_2.6.4\rtl\win\wininc\defines.inc
line 5669 (in 3.6.4)
{ our own invention }
FLAG_TRACE_BIT = $100;
This is only there for 32 bit and wince, but not for win64.
But the problem is finding out what it actually means. All googling has
not brought any definition to it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLAGS_register
It's a trap (single-step) flag. to stop after each instruction. (IIRC with
some exceptions).
I'd think it should be AMD64 compatible.
thanks,
Dmitry
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 6:17 PM, Martin Frb laza...@mfriebe.de wrote:
16 matches
Mail list logo
