On 2022-01-12 13:38, Martin Frb via fpc-devel wrote:
On 12/01/2022 11:51, Marco van de Voort via fpc-devel wrote:
On 12-1-2022 11:38, Ben Grasset via fpc-devel wrote:
If it's actually now somehow the case that an offer to provide Win64
builds would be refused though, I guess maybe I'll look into hosting
them myself somewhere else? Although again I don't get why it would
be fine for Linux to have a zillion archives for different
configurations here:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/freepascal/files/Linux/3.2.2/
As said, Windows 64-bit is a special case because it doesn't
support/recommend extended. This makes cross compiling to targets that
do difficult till we have softfloat support.
Ok, let me throw in my 2 cents here....
.
.
- The problem is *NOT* a native 64 bit "ppcx64.exe" ?
=> 64 bit compiled targets don't require "extended" from the ppc,
as they themself wont have support for it?
Wrong - applies only to the Win64 target, whereas e.g. 64-bit Linux
(supported by the same compiler targetting 64-bit code) supports
extended. This means that compiling source code with this compiler may
result in a different binary as soon as there's e.g. an extended
contstant included in the source code, or any compile-time calculations
in this precision need to be performed.
So up to this point, afaik there would be no problem, having those
executables as 64-bit exe?
.
.
There would, see above.
Tomas
_______________________________________________
fpc-devel maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
