These are the important fields:
>unsigned long totalhigh; /* Total high memory size */
>unsigned long freehigh; /* Available high memory size */
>unsigned int mem_unit; /* Memory unit size in bytes */
and they were added to FPC in 2007 via this
On 19 March 2010 15:10, David W Noon wrote:
>
> You will also need to take into account the differences between 32-nit
> and 64-bit platforms. The struct sysinfo declarations use "unsigned
> long" for most of the fields, but the size of that varies with
> platform: on a 32-bit platform unsigned l
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 14:45:29 +, Henry Vermaak wrote about Re:
[fpc-devel] Linux.SysInfo Problem:
> On 19 March 2010 14:31, Andrew Brunner
> wrote:
> >
> > Anyone with more SysInfo details on what it may have been replaced
> > with? Updated calling conventions?
>
In our previous episode, Henry Vermaak said:
> On 19 March 2010 14:31, Andrew Brunner wrote:
> >
> > Anyone with more SysInfo details on what it may have been replaced
> > with? ?Updated calling conventions?
>
> Can you please write a small c app that returns all the sysinfo
> values? Then we ca
On 19 March 2010 14:31, Andrew Brunner wrote:
>
> Anyone with more SysInfo details on what it may have been replaced
> with? Updated calling conventions?
Can you please write a small c app that returns all the sysinfo
values? Then we can figure out if the problem is with fpc.
Henry
___
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 9:25 AM, Henry Vermaak wrote:
> According to the man page, the sysinfo structure hasn't changed in 10 years?
Ok, That's the culprit. 10 years ago we had bill gates telling the
world 640KB was enough (about the time Al Gore was inventing the
Internet). The structure needs
On 19 March 2010 09:30, Marco van de Voort wrote:
> In our previous episode, Andrew Brunner said:
>> This was tested on Ubuntu x64 10.04
>> 64bit AMD with 3Gigs of RAM
>>
>> Linux.SysInfo(@SI);
>> Load_Ram:=(100-Trunc(100 * SI.freeram / SI.totalram));
>>
>> Si.totalram checks out ok. SI.freeram n
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 4:32 AM, Mark Morgan Lloyd
wrote:
> Are the numbers returned by SysInfo() similar to those returned by Linux's
> 'free' program and 'top'? Are you taking into account that your program, and
> in particular the Lazarus IDE, are going to be reducing the amount of free
> memor
Andrew Brunner wrote:
This was tested on Ubuntu x64 10.04
64bit AMD with 3Gigs of RAM
Linux.SysInfo(@SI);
Load_Ram:=(100-Trunc(100 * SI.freeram / SI.totalram));
Si.totalram checks out ok. SI.freeram never seems to be accurate.
The numbers returned here do not correspond to that of System Moni
In our previous episode, Andrew Brunner said:
> This was tested on Ubuntu x64 10.04
> 64bit AMD with 3Gigs of RAM
>
> Linux.SysInfo(@SI);
> Load_Ram:=(100-Trunc(100 * SI.freeram / SI.totalram));
>
> Si.totalram checks out ok. SI.freeram never seems to be accurate.
>
> The numbers returned here
This was tested on Ubuntu x64 10.04
64bit AMD with 3Gigs of RAM
Linux.SysInfo(@SI);
Load_Ram:=(100-Trunc(100 * SI.freeram / SI.totalram));
Si.totalram checks out ok. SI.freeram never seems to be accurate.
The numbers returned here do not correspond to that of System Monitor
for the same user.
W
11 matches
Mail list logo
