On 13/01/16 07:33, Marco van de Voort wrote:
> In our previous episode, Sven Barth said:
>> There is a variant of the OPT parameter that applies options only for the
>> last compilation. This way you can use options that the compiling compiler
>> does not yet support. Now if I'd only remember that.
Am 13.01.2016 08:34 schrieb "Marco van de Voort" :
>
> In our previous episode, Sven Barth said:
> > There is a variant of the OPT parameter that applies options only for
the
> > last compilation. This way you can use options that the compiling
compiler
> > does not yet support. Now if I'd only rem
In our previous episode, Sven Barth said:
> There is a variant of the OPT parameter that applies options only for the
> last compilation. This way you can use options that the compiling compiler
> does not yet support. Now if I'd only remember that... -.- (for cross
> compilation one can use CROSS_
Am 13.01.2016 00:53 schrieb "Peter" :
> But what about optimising the RTL to -O4?
>
> I did a separate pass to build the RTL with -O4 which 2.64 does not
> support. I found it makes a useful difference to the execution speed of
> some programs.
There is a variant of the OPT parameter that applies
On 10/01/16 15:35, Jonas Maebe wrote:
> On 10/01/16 16:22, Bo Berglund wrote:
>> I always use the make all command via the Makefile.
>> So do I read you right that the Makefile compiles the compiler twice,
>> once using the seed compiler and then using the thus created compiler?
>
> It compiles it
On Sun, 10 Jan 2016 16:35:43 +0100, Jonas Maebe
wrote:
>On 10/01/16 16:22, Bo Berglund wrote:
>> I always use the make all command via the Makefile.
>> So do I read you right that the Makefile compiles the compiler twice,
>> once using the seed compiler and then using the thus created compiler?
>
On 10/01/16 16:22, Bo Berglund wrote:
I always use the make all command via the Makefile.
So do I read you right that the Makefile compiles the compiler twice,
once using the seed compiler and then using the thus created compiler?
It compiles it thrice: once more in the end to ensure that the r
On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 00:47:54 -0700 (MST), leledumbo
wrote:
>> Should I make fpc 3.0.0 once more using the newly created fpc 3.0.0?
>
>Yes if you do compile by hand (without Makefile)
Which I never do...
...
>
>Else if what you mean is: will using 2.6.4 as the starting compiler produce
>different
> Should I make fpc 3.0.0 once more using the newly created fpc 3.0.0?
Yes if you do compile by hand (without Makefile)
> Will there be some difference between the two 3.0.0 versions if I do?
If what you mean is: does 3.0.0 compiler binary produced from single
compilation by 2.6.4 differ from
Bo Berglund wrote:
I downloaded the release tag of fpc 3.0.0 via svn and built it using
the 2.6.4 seed compiler. It seems to work OK.
But now I got to thinking:
Should I make fpc 3.0.0 once more using the newly created fpc 3.0.0?
Will there be some difference between the two 3.0.0 versions if I
I downloaded the release tag of fpc 3.0.0 via svn and built it using
the 2.6.4 seed compiler. It seems to work OK.
But now I got to thinking:
Should I make fpc 3.0.0 once more using the newly created fpc 3.0.0?
Will there be some difference between the two 3.0.0 versions if I do?
--
Bo Berglund
11 matches
Mail list logo
