On Mon, January 27, 2014 01:38, Fred van Stappen wrote:
> Ok, i will try to explain better.
>
> When you compile fpc, you do > make clean + make all.
>
> Is it possible to configure fpc-compil and disable Delphi
> compatibility...?
>
> If not possible, no problem, i only want to know :-) .
Short
2014-01-26 Michael Van Canneyt
>
> On Sun, 26 Jan 2014, silvioprog wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Conforms issue #16043:
>>
>> "ExtractStrings in the Classes unit skips over empty text. For example:
>>
>
> Yes. This is delphi compatible.
>
> The only possibility is to add a new argument ExtractEmpty :
Hello Waldo.
Aaargh, there is double-topic, can you look at the twins topic ?
Thanks.
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Ok, i will try to explain better.
When you compile fpc, you do > make clean + make all.
Is it possible to configure fpc-compil and disable Delphi compatibility...?
If not possible, no problem, i only want to know :-) .
Fred
__
On 1/26/2014 4:00 PM, fredvs wrote:
Hello.
Does it exist a option to compile fpc without Delphi compatibility ?
does {$mode objpfc} not suit your needs? ;)
or whatever the default is? O:)
--
NOTE: No off-list assistance is given without prior approval.
Please keep mailing list traffic
Re-hum,...
It seams to me that fpc do not need delphi-compatibility to compile himself (or
i miss something).
So it could be possible to compile fpc without any Delphi-compatible module
(Yes/No).
But maybe it does not will change lot of things, only it will make fpc a few
"lighter" (so forget
> What extent of Delphi incompatibility would satisfy you?
>
> {$objfpc}
> has offered 'mild' incompatibility for many years.
> What additional incompatibilities are you looking for?
>
> Howard
Hum, maybe i do not explain good the proposition...
I
do not want a other {$define not Delphi}, i w
On 26/01/2014 21:20, Fred van Stappen wrote:
Does it exist a option to compile fpc without Delphi compatibility ?
If no, what do you think about that ?
I know, it will be lot of work (like create a Delhi_Compatiblizer
class...) but it could be great for people who want a "lighter"
compiler...(l
On 01/26/2014 11:00 PM, fredvs wrote:
Hello.
Does it exist a option to compile fpc without Delphi compatibility ?
If no, what do you think about that ?
I know, it will be lot of work (like create a Delhi_Compatiblizer class...)
PS : I absolutely do not want to hurt somebody, it is only a propo
Ooops, sorry for 2X same topic...
I used http://free-pascal-general.1045716.n5.nabble.com/ for first topic it
responds that the message was refused...
So i sent the second one, as usual, with hotmail.com...
Fred
_
Hello.
Does it exist a option to compile fpc without Delphi compatibility ?
If no, what do you think about that ?
I know, it will be lot of work (like create a Delhi_Compatiblizer class...)
PS : I absolutely do not want to hurt somebody, it is only a proposition.
-
Many thanks ;-)
--
Vie
Hello.
Does it exist a option to compile fpc without Delphi compatibility ?
If no, what do you think about that ?
I know, it will be lot of work (like create a Delhi_Compatiblizer class...) but
it could be great for people who want a "lighter" compiler...(like me, who have
already done, since
TFoo1 is a sub range of FFoo
And it seems to match both TFoo and variant.
project1.lpr(24,3) Error: Can't determine which overloaded function to
call
project1.lpr(15,11) Hint: Found declaration: Bar(TFoo);
project1.lpr(11,11) Hint: Found declaration: Bar(Variant);
No other type seems to be
2014/1/26 Michael Van Canneyt
>
> On Sun, 26 Jan 2014, silvioprog wrote:
>
> Hello,
>>
>> Conforms issue #16043:
>>
>> "ExtractStrings in the Classes unit skips over empty text. For example:
>>
>
> Yes. This is delphi compatible.
>
I can imagine that the Delphi developers started from a routine
On Sun, 26 Jan 2014, silvioprog wrote:
Hello,
Conforms issue #16043:
"ExtractStrings in the Classes unit skips over empty text. For example:
Yes. This is delphi compatible.
The only possibility is to add a new argument ExtractEmpty : Boolean = False;
which would, when set to true, also ex
In case I would like to have at least 2011 devices as minimum targets, what
are the safe values for them? Are -CpARMv6 -CfSOFT enough? Or either could
be made better?
--
View this message in context:
http://free-pascal-general.1045716.n5.nabble.com/ARM-Android-Safe-values-for-Cp-and-Cf-tp571812
16 matches
Mail list logo