Am 17.08.2013 21:31, schrieb Mark Morgan Lloyd:
Bernd Oppolzer wrote:
- first I would like to port the Stanford compiler to Windows, OS/2
and maybe Linux 386,
using FPC. Only phase 1, which generates PCode. My goal is not to get
a compiler
which produces executable code, but to learn about the
Bernd Oppolzer wrote:
- first I would like to port the Stanford compiler to Windows, OS/2 and
maybe Linux 386,
using FPC. Only phase 1, which generates PCode. My goal is not to get a
compiler
which produces executable code, but to learn about the issues when
porting an EBCDIC
compiler to an AS
Sven Barth wrote:
You're telling him that it's possible to build using
...CPU_TARGET=i386 OS_TARGET=linux but where do those come from?
Without being told by a developer or without referring to fully
updated documentation, how does somebody know to use "i386" rather
than "x86", or whether it
Am 25.07.2013 15:12, schrieb Mark Morgan Lloyd:
Sven Barth wrote:
Am 25.07.2013 12:10, schrieb Mark Morgan Lloyd:
Sven Barth wrote:
On 24.07.2013 16:36, Bernd Oppolzer wrote:
Then I built the RTL for linux, which also worked successfully, as
far
as I saw,
but when compiling with -Tlinux, I n
Sven Barth wrote:
Am 25.07.2013 12:10, schrieb Mark Morgan Lloyd:
Sven Barth wrote:
On 24.07.2013 16:36, Bernd Oppolzer wrote:
Then I built the RTL for linux, which also worked successfully, as far
as I saw,
but when compiling with -Tlinux, I now get the following message:
How did you build
On Wed, July 24, 2013 16:36, Bernd Oppolzer wrote:
Hello Bernd,
.
.
> Free Pascal Compiler version 2.7.1 [2013/07/24] for i386
> Copyright (c) 1993-2013 by Florian Klaempfl an
> When trying to build the RTL for OS/2 (running make in the os2 subdir of
fpc/rtl), I get the following messages:
> C
On Wed, July 24, 2013 16:36, Bernd Oppolzer wrote:
Hello Bernd,
.
.
> Free Pascal Compiler version 2.7.1 [2013/07/24] for i386
> Copyright (c) 1993-2013 by Florian Klaempfl an
> When trying to build the RTL for OS/2 (running make in the os2 subdir of
fpc/rtl), I get the following messages:
> C
Am 25.07.2013 12:10, schrieb Mark Morgan Lloyd:
Sven Barth wrote:
On 24.07.2013 16:36, Bernd Oppolzer wrote:
Then I built the RTL for linux, which also worked successfully, as far
as I saw,
but when compiling with -Tlinux, I now get the following message:
How did you build it? Building the RT
Sven Barth wrote:
On 24.07.2013 16:36, Bernd Oppolzer wrote:
Then I built the RTL for linux, which also worked successfully, as far
as I saw,
but when compiling with -Tlinux, I now get the following message:
How did you build it? Building the RTL for Linux should be (assuming
that your FPC so
On 24.07.2013 16:36, Bernd Oppolzer wrote:
Then I built the RTL for linux, which also worked successfully, as far
as I saw,
but when compiling with -Tlinux, I now get the following message:
How did you build it? Building the RTL for Linux should be (assuming
that your FPC source is at c:\fpc)
Thank you very much.
I succeeded in building a new compiler from the SVN sources,
and it runs successfully for the win32 target.
C:\fpc_test>ppc386 pasform.pas
Free Pascal Compiler version 2.7.1 [2013/07/24] for i386
Copyright (c) 1993-2013 by Florian Klaempfl and others
Target OS: Win32 for i38
no problem at all :-)
Am 24.07.2013 14:43, schrieb Mark Morgan Lloyd:
Sven Barth wrote:
We're heading off topic, no disrespect to Bernd intended.
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo
Sven Barth wrote:
We're heading off topic, no disrespect to Bernd intended.
With the compiler as it stands, I've been able to define e.g.
+ , define a variant constant "reduce", and
then do e.g. a := reduce + b where b is an array. Which was all fine
except that (at least when I last looke
Am 24.07.2013 14:18, schrieb Mark Morgan Lloyd:
Sven Barth wrote:
Am 24.07.2013 12:37, schrieb Mark Morgan Lloyd:
Jonas Maebe wrote:
On 24 Jul 2013, at 03:41, Bernd Oppolzer wrote:
- Stanford Pascal (my version) allows (. .) and (/ /) as
substitutes for [ ]
FPC also supports (. and .). It
Sven Barth wrote:
Am 24.07.2013 12:37, schrieb Mark Morgan Lloyd:
Jonas Maebe wrote:
On 24 Jul 2013, at 03:41, Bernd Oppolzer wrote:
- Stanford Pascal (my version) allows (. .) and (/ /) as substitutes
for [ ]
FPC also supports (. and .). It doesn't support (/ and /) though.
Support for t
Am 24.07.2013 14:12, schrieb Bernd Oppolzer:
Sorry, I'm sure, this is a very basic question,
just to speed up things a little ...
when I run the compiler on Windows on my test sources,
everythings works fine.
Now I wanted to build executables for OS/2 and Linux-386,
just to learn more about cro
Sorry, I'm sure, this is a very basic question,
just to speed up things a little ...
when I run the compiler on Windows on my test sources,
everythings works fine.
Now I wanted to build executables for OS/2 and Linux-386,
just to learn more about cross-compile. But the installed compiler-exe
(wh
Am 24.07.2013 12:37, schrieb Mark Morgan Lloyd:
Jonas Maebe wrote:
On 24 Jul 2013, at 03:41, Bernd Oppolzer wrote:
- Stanford Pascal (my version) allows (. .) and (/ /) as substitutes
for [ ]
FPC also supports (. and .). It doesn't support (/ and /) though.
Support for that could maybe be
Am 24.07.2013 12:13, schrieb Bernd Oppolzer:
Oh, so it is already implemented :-)
same here:
TOF:
1 LINE # D/NEST LVL < STANFORD PASCAL, OPPOLZER VERSION OF
10.2011 >12:07:15 07-24-2013PAGE 1
1 ) program DECOD ( INPUT , OUTPUT ) ;
2 ) (*$
minor correction: the substitute (/ /) is for array indices [ ], not for
comments.
This looks like a matter of taste, but if there were significant amounts of
legacy source code using this, this could be of concern.
(I don't know, if this is the case - I have such programs, because (/ /)
was
a
Jonas Maebe wrote:
On 24 Jul 2013, at 03:41, Bernd Oppolzer wrote:
- Stanford Pascal (my version) allows (. .) and (/ /) as substitutes for [ ]
FPC also supports (. and .). It doesn't support (/ and /) though. Support for
that could maybe be added under a new syntax mode or mode switch swit
Bernd Oppolzer wrote:
Some answers to some questions below:
- the (/ /) substitute for [ ] was the only available substitute in the
original Stanford compiler (which, BTW, is the Pascal P4 of Niklaus Wirth).
I added (. .), because this was present in my sources. Same goes for ->,
Stanford suppor
Oh, so it is already implemented :-)
same here:
TOF:
1 LINE # D/NEST LVL < STANFORD PASCAL, OPPOLZER VERSION OF
10.2011 >12:07:15 07-24-2013PAGE 1
1 ) program DECOD ( INPUT , OUTPUT ) ;
2 ) (*$N+*)
3 ) var I : INTEGER ;
Some answers to some questions below:
- the (/ /) substitute for [ ] was the only available substitute in the
original Stanford compiler (which, BTW, is the Pascal P4 of Niklaus Wirth).
I added (. .), because this was present in my sources. Same goes for ->,
Stanford supported @ only (IIRC).
- t
Am 24.07.2013 11:36, schrieb Bernd Oppolzer:
Yesterday, for example, I observed that even writeln (s); for scalar
types
s is supported - which IMO was not the case for older Pascals - very
convenient for quick tests ...
Free Pascal has vast extensions compared to older Pascal dialects. I
sugges
Am 24.07.2013 03:41, schrieb Bernd Oppolzer:
- when I completed this, I would like to experiment with FPC, trying
to build a compiler
from the source tree, for a new target CPU and OS, that is, IBMZ. I
know enough about
IBM machine code, ASSEMBLER, opsys and run time systems. In contrast
to the
Am 24.07.2013 10:02, schrieb Jonas Maebe:
Comments of different types can be nested;
comments of the same type can be nested, if the compiler option N+ is set.
FPC supports nesting of {} comments. (* *) comments do not nest, and { }
comments appearing inside (* *) comments are ignored (they d
Normally, migrating ASCII sourcecode (be it C or Pascal)
to IBM z is no big deal; you transfer the source to the mainframe
by textmode FTP or similar tools, and everything works fine.
With C in the 90s, there were some issues, because the
C operator characters were at strange places in the differ
Bernd Oppolzer wrote:
- when I completed this, I would like to experiment with FPC, trying to
build a compiler
from the source tree, for a new target CPU and OS, that is, IBMZ. I know
enough about
IBM machine code, ASSEMBLER, opsys and run time systems. In contrast to
the discussions
that I sa
On 24 Jul 2013, at 03:41, Bernd Oppolzer wrote:
> I'm a new member on the fpc-devel mailing list.
Welcome.
> I would like to know, if there are still some efforts going on to
> do a port of FPC on IBMs z architecture. There has been some work
> in this area, although somewhere in the FPC wiki t
Hello,
I'm a new member on the fpc-devel mailing list.
I would like to know, if there are still some efforts going on to
do a port of FPC on IBMs z architecture. There has been some work
in this area, although somewhere in the FPC wiki there are statements
that there will be probably no port to
31 matches
Mail list logo
