Running win32 fpc 2.7.1 10/01/2014
Compiling with no -v options.I get
An unhandled exception occurred at $0043C670:37
EInvalidOp: Invalid floating point operation
$0043C670 REGRESS, line 347 of c:/com/livel.pp
When I check what this line no is it is last line of a procedure regress
which doe
> This patch is totally, totally wrong. variants and varutils are no longer
> part of the RTL, and this patch tries to reinstate them.
>
> It should simply work as is. Yes, there are some old dependencies left in
> the old makefile.fpc, but that doesn't matter.
>
> Something else in your setup is
In our previous episode, denisgolovan said:
> >
> > fpc trunk 26427 compiles here under Linux 64bit with fpc 2.6.2.
> >
> > Mattias
> Even though it currently works, I believe at least Makefile.fpc in rtl/linux
> directory is not updated.
> It still assumes varutils.pp, variants.pp in old places
>
> fpc trunk 26427 compiles here under Linux 64bit with fpc 2.6.2.
>
> Mattias
Hi Mattias
Even though it currently works, I believe at least Makefile.fpc in rtl/linux
directory is not updated.
It still assumes varutils.pp, variants.pp in old places.
You can try to look at my roughly made patc
On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 15:28:27 +0400
denisgolovan wrote:
> Hi
>
> Looks like since 26398 rev. fpc cannot be built.
> It fails with following when running "make all".
>
> classes.pp(56) Warning: Implicit uses of Variants unit
> Fatal: Can't find unit variants used by Classes
> Fatal: Compilation
Hi
Looks like since 26398 rev. fpc cannot be built.
It fails with following when running "make all".
classes.pp(56) Warning: Implicit uses of Variants unit
Fatal: Can't find unit variants used by Classes
Fatal: Compilation aborted
Any hints to resolve?
P.S. I am under Linux, svn rev. 26427
-
On Sat, 11 Jan 2014, Marco van de Voort wrote:
In our previous episode, Michael Van Canneyt said:
Am 2014-01-11 13:14, schrieb Michael Van Canneyt:
I meant that I use a diagram typesetting package for LaTeX. This package
definitely works like that.
Then something is wrong with this package
On Sat, 11 Jan 2014, Jürgen Hestermann wrote:
Am 11.01.2014 19:58, schrieb Michael Van Canneyt:
Why this inconsistency?
I don't necessarily consider this inconsistent.
Why not?
Do you mean syntax diagrams don't need any logic?
In their headers ? No. In the content ? Yes.
If the diagram
