Eugene Mayevski wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I downloaded 64-bit toolset in April (afair). Is there any new version
> available?
No, but building them from source is no problem.
> Also, is it possible to deploy the pre-compiled tools in 32-bit format? It
> can be run in Windows 64-bit easily, and at the
Steve Williams wrote:
Michael
Van Canneyt wrote:
Which is why I think that it's better to have
them as local functions,
instead of having to introduce a lot of new functions.
Local functions are very pascal-ish. C doesn't have it, which is why
they can't use it.
Let's u
On Wednesday 26 July 2006 10:05, Andreas Berger wrote:
> Steve Williams wrote:
> > Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
> >> Which is why I think that it's better to have them as local
> >> functions, instead of having to introduce a lot of new functions.
> >>
> >> Local functions are very pascal-ish. C does
Vinzent wrote:
> .. According to the documentation, the size of the
> local variables (allocated on the stack) should not exceed 32 KiBytes
> for portability reasons.
Thanks a lot. And I thought, I did RTFM often enough ...
BTW, do you know why exceptions donŽt return a line number? As I under
On Thursday 27 July 2006 12:05, Wolfram Kläger wrote:
> Vinzent wrote:
> > .. According to the documentation, the size of the
> > local variables (allocated on the stack) should not exceed 32
> > KiBytes for portability reasons.
>
> Thanks a lot. And I thought, I did RTFM often enough ...
>
> BTW,
2006/7/27, Vinzent Hoefler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Wednesday 26 July 2006 10:05, Andreas Berger wrote:
> Steve Williams wrote:
> > Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
> >> Which is why I think that it's better to have them as local
> >> functions, instead of having to introduce a lot of new functions.
> >
Vinzent wrote:
> > BTW, do you know why exceptions donŽt return a line number?
>
> Because you forgot to include the "-gl" switch for automatically
> including the line info unit?
As I understand it, this option is only helpful when you are struggling with
the debugger. My question is: What is
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Wolfram Kläger wrote:
Vinzent wrote:
BTW, do you know why exceptions don?t return a line number?
Because you forgot to include the "-gl" switch for automatically
including the line info unit?
As I understand it, this option is only helpful when you are struggling with
Am Donnerstag, 27. Juli 2006 15:15 schrieb Wolfram Kläger:
> Vinzent wrote:
> > > BTW, do you know why exceptions donŽt return a line number?
> >
> > Because you forgot to include the "-gl" switch for automatically
> > including the line info unit?
>
> As I understand it, this option is only helpfu
On Thursday 27 July 2006 12:53, Alexandre Leclerc wrote:
> Then we could very simply have:
> parallel procedure ParallelBlock;
> parallel function ParallelFunction; //if this can happen...
Yes. I thought of something like that, because it could quite easily
match with a "parallel for" construct.
>>Jason P Sage wrote:
>>> A good example is that FreeVision and the FPC IDE do not work on my
>>> Linux either.
>>
>>Elaborate on "do not work" please ?
>>
>>Micha
[Jason Peter Sage] Hello Michael. "Does Not Work" means in this case that
the source code compiles, but when I run it (It DOES RUN)
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Jason P Sage wrote:
Jason P Sage wrote:
A good example is that FreeVision and the FPC IDE do not work on my
Linux either.
Elaborate on "do not work" please ?
Micha
[Jason Peter Sage] Hello Michael.
Micha <> Michael :-)
"Does Not Work" means in this case that
the
Michael wrote:
> .. FileName/Linenumber info is only available through debug information.
> It's not an interpreted language, but compiled language.
Thanks for explanation.
Wolfram
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://list
On 25 Jul 06, at 16:45, Andreas Berger wrote:
> Vincent Snijders wrote:
> > Andreas Berger schreef:
> >> Andreas Berger wrote:
> >>> I have a problem compiling the compiler. After a lot of compilation
> >>> it attempts to compile pp.pas and I get the following error:
> >>>pp.pas(213,1) Error:
Tomas Hajny wrote:
No wonder. ;-) When using "make all", the new
(2.1.1) compiler is compiled using the starting
compiler (2.0.x). "Make cycle" tries to make sure
that the created compiler is still useable, at
least that useable that it can still build
itself. It does so by doing the same thi
On 26 Jul 06, at 9:38, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Friš Martin Mgr wrote:
>
> > I give additional details. I write programs for mathematical linguistics.
> > Especially program for frequency dictionary of chosen text.
> > I write text to the editor. The text is in Czech. It d
On 27 Jul 06, at 19:01, Andreas Berger wrote:
> Tomas Hajny wrote:
> > No wonder. ;-) When using "make all", the new
> > (2.1.1) compiler is compiled using the starting
> > compiler (2.0.x). "Make cycle" tries to make sure
> > that the created compiler is still useable, at
> > least that useab
Tomas Hajny wrote:
On 27 Jul 06, at 19:01, Andreas Berger wrote:
Tomas Hajny wrote:
No wonder. ;-) When using "make all", the new
(2.1.1) compiler is compiled using the starting
compiler (2.0.x). "Make cycle" tries to make sure
that the created compiler is still useable, at
least th
18 matches
Mail list logo
