On Sat, 29 Aug 2015, Marc Santhoff wrote:
Hi,
peeking the database code I found that:
- a TDataSet has FieldDefs
- fields are described by TFieldDef(s)
- TField has several special properties like "KeyFields" and
"LookupDataset"
How are these properties of TField (descendants) set and by wh
On Friday 28 August 2015 10:30:24 Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
> Martin Schreiber wrote:
> > On Wednesday 26 August 2015 20:14:09 Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
> >> Is there a native ARM version compatible with the Raspberry Pi?
> >
> > Here:
> > http://sourceforge.net/projects/mseide-msegui/files/fpcarm/
>
On 29/08/15 11:55, Martin Schreiber wrote:
> "
> make PP=/home/pi/fpc/3_0/eabihf/lib/fpc/3.0.1/ppcarm OVERRIDEVERSIONCHECK=1
> all
> "
> in a fixes_3_0 checkout works for me.
Note that Mark is building 3.0.0rc1, not fixes_3_0. Building an older
revision with a compiler built from a newer revision
Just downloaded the non debug version onto my rpi 2. Extracted - 6 files in
/bin, including fpc but it is 2.6.4 not 3.0. Any ideas? Is there a rc1 .gz
anywhere?
John
On 29 August 2015 at 10:55, Martin Schreiber wrote:
> On Friday 28 August 2015 10:30:24 Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
> > Martin Schre
Am 29. August 2015 12:00:26 nachm. schrieb Jonas Maebe
:
>
> In any case: you should have to pass OPT="-dFPC_ARMHF" to get an armhf
> compiler (even if you already start with an armhf compiler).
This should not be necessary?
___
fpc-pascal maillist -
On Saturday 29 August 2015 13:32:57 John Lee wrote:
> Just downloaded the non debug version onto my rpi 2. Extracted - 6 files in
> /bin, including fpc but it is 2.6.4 not 3.0. Any ideas?
Try to start
"
/eabihf/lib/fpc/3.0.1/ppcrossarm
"
directly. /bin/fpc probably picks the wrong compiler.
Marti
On 29/08/15 13:40, Florian Klämpfl wrote:
> Am 29. August 2015 12:00:26 nachm. schrieb Jonas Maebe
> :
>>
>> In any case: you should have to pass OPT="-dFPC_ARMHF" to get an armhf
>> compiler (even if you already start with an armhf compiler).
>
> This should not be necessary?
I also used to thin
Am 29. August 2015 1:58:06 nachm. schrieb Jonas Maebe
:
> On 29/08/15 13:40, Florian Klämpfl wrote:
>> Am 29. August 2015 12:00:26 nachm. schrieb Jonas Maebe
>> :
>>>
>>> In any case: you should have to pass OPT="-dFPC_ARMHF" to get an armhf
>>> compiler (even if you already start with an armhf co
On 29/08/15 14:49, Florian Klämpfl wrote:
> Am 29. August 2015 1:58:06 nachm. schrieb Jonas Maebe
> :
>
>> On 29/08/15 13:40, Florian Klämpfl wrote:
>>> Am 29. August 2015 12:00:26 nachm. schrieb Jonas Maebe
>>> :
In any case: you should have to pass OPT="-dFPC_ARMHF" to get an armhf
>>>
Jonas Maebe wrote:
On 29/08/15 11:55, Martin Schreiber wrote:
"
make PP=/home/pi/fpc/3_0/eabihf/lib/fpc/3.0.1/ppcarm OVERRIDEVERSIONCHECK=1
all
"
in a fixes_3_0 checkout works for me.
Note that Mark is building 3.0.0rc1, not fixes_3_0. Building an older
revision with a compiler built from a
Dohhh, still getting 2.6.4.
Did you mean ppcarm?
Downloaded fpc_eabihf_3_0_1.tar.gz, extracted
If I cd to eabihf/lib/fpc/3.0.1 there is ppcarm of 14th Aug there but
running ppcarm still gives 2.6.4!
Or should I do exec ppcarm?
John
On 29 August 2015 at 12:52, Martin Schreiber
On 29/08/15 17:30, John Lee wrote:
> If I cd to eabihf/lib/fpc/3.0.1 there is ppcarm of 14th Aug there but
> running ppcarm still gives 2.6.4!
On Unix-like platforms, you have to use "./ppcarm" to execute the ppcarm
binary in the current directory instead of the one in the PATH. The
reason is tha
Martin Schreiber wrote:
On Saturday 29 August 2015 15:38:35 Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
Martin, what would be really useful is knowing /exactly/ what sources
you used to build your binary at
http://sourceforge.net/projects/mseide-msegui/files/fpcarm/
"
svn info
Path: .
Working Copy Root Path: /ho
Am 29.08.2015 um 14:54 schrieb Jonas Maebe:
> On 29/08/15 14:49, Florian Klämpfl wrote:
>> Am 29. August 2015 1:58:06 nachm. schrieb Jonas Maebe
>> :
>>
>>> On 29/08/15 13:40, Florian Klämpfl wrote:
Am 29. August 2015 12:00:26 nachm. schrieb Jonas Maebe
:
>
> In any case: you shou
Am 27.08.2015 um 02:08 schrieb Ched:
> Hello,
>
> I strongly discourage the use of {$optimization deadstore} which induced
> strong numerical errors on our solar system calculations (i386 linux).
> The other new ones
>{$optimization deadvalues}
>{$optimization orderfields}
>{$optimizat
On Saturday 29 August 2015 20:05:35 John Lee wrote:
>
> /usr/bin/ld: warning: link.res contains output sections; did you forget -T?
This is normal.
Martin
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/ma
On 29/08/15 20:50, John Lee wrote:
> What is fix please? I noticed Jonas committed a link patch to svn today.
> Does that fix it?
No.
Jonas
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listi
On 29/08/15 19:48, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
> Nevertheless, it does not explain why the OPT=-dFPC_ARMHF is needed.
It is not necessary, I had simply (wrongly) made that deduction from
looking all over the compiler source code (except for in fpcdefs.inc)
and checking where it would automatically set
18 matches
Mail list logo
