Re: [fpc-other] I thought it was going to get better, but no

[Jonas Maebe via fpc-other]

On 29/04/2023 12:24, Jacob Kroon via fpc-other wrote:
I find it very odd the way you write above, and that you insist on 
defending Nikolay/Joanna.


Nikolay is a member of the FPC core team. As a result, we know him 
fairly well. He really is not Joanna.



Jonas
___
fpc-other maillist  -  fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org
https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other

Re: [fpc-other] A clever numbergame

[Jonas Maebe via fpc-other]

On 09/07/2022 16:26, Petri via fpc-other wrote:
It's is very clever - there is an artificial intelligence ie. a game 
tree algorithm so You can't win the game.


In terms of programming that's cool, but in terms of making a game 
that's fun to play it may not be the best approach :)



Jonas
___
fpc-other maillist  -  fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org
https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other

Re: [fpc-other] target Android 10 (API level 29) and ppcjvm classescompatibility

[Jonas Maebe via fpc-other]

On 11/07/2021 16:30, Mgr. Janusz Chmiel via fpc-other wrote:
> I Am using Android25 Pascal header files, because Android29 Api headers
> do not support some Pascal source code lines when overide word is being
> used.
> 
> Sure, I know, that Pascal systém libraryes are still generated by using
> Android 15 Pascal header files. But formally, The Google Play
> requirements are satisfied. Because I have used android29 target APIS to
> build classes.

Indeed, that should be fine. The FPC run time library only uses very
basic Java APIs, which normally will not change between different
Android versions. So you should always be able to use the standard FPC
run time library in combination with newer versions of the Android API
headers without any problems.


Jonas
___
fpc-other maillist  -  fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org
https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other

Re: [fpc-other] Lists and wiki down?

[Jonas Maebe]

On 01/06/2020 12:29, Stéphane Aulery wrote:
> Tonight I tried to register with user "LkpPo" and was always defeated by
> the CAPTCHA. After some times I reloaded the page to try again from the
> beginning. After that, lists.freepascal.org and wiki.freepascal.org are
> down (connection failed).

The server automatically blocks IP-addresses for a while if they fail
the captcha too often in order to block account registration bots.

I have unblocked what I think  your IP-address. Keep in mind the captcha
does not ask you to perform a mathematical sum, but a string concatenation.


Jonas
___
fpc-other maillist  -  fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org
https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other

Re: [fpc-other] Pascal equivalent to The wakeLock.acquire

[Jonas Maebe]

On 22/05/2020 14:34, Mgr. Janusz Chmiel via fpc-other wrote:
> I Am wondering, how to construct The series of Pascal statements which will
> have The same effect like in Java.
> wakeLock.acquire ();
> 
> 
> The command
> wakeLock.newWakeLock (1, '"Migration');
> Work perfectly.
> But
> wakeLock.acquire (
>   );
> Causes error when compiling.
> I Am using AndroidR15
> APi headers for Pascal.

The AOPowerManager.WakeLock inner class declaration is indeed incomplete
in the Pascal translation: it's missing all of the method declarations.
It must be a bug in the javapp program (maybe because the constructor of
that class is private).

You should be able to work around it by placing this declaration in your
own program or unit source file. It should override the incomplete
declaration from the androidr15 unit.

type
  AOPowerManager = class external 'android.os' name 'PowerManager'
(JLObject)
  public
type
  InnerWakeLock = class;
  Arr1InnerWakeLock = array of InnerWakeLock;
  Arr2InnerWakeLock = array of Arr1InnerWakeLock;
  Arr3InnerWakeLock = array of Arr2InnerWakeLock;
  InnerWakeLock = class external 'android.os' name 'WakeLock'
procedure acquire; overload; virtual;
procedure acquire(timeout: jlong); overload; virtual;
function isHeld: boolean; overload; virtual;
procedure release; overload; virtual;
procedure release(flags: jint); overload; virtual;
procedure setReferenceCounted(value: boolean); overload; virtual;
procedure setWorkSource(ws: AOWorkSource); overload; virtual;
function toString(): JLString; overload; virtual;
  end;

  public
const
  PARTIAL_WAKE_LOCK = 1;
  FULL_WAKE_LOCK = 26;
  SCREEN_BRIGHT_WAKE_LOCK = 10;
  SCREEN_DIM_WAKE_LOCK = 6;
  ACQUIRE_CAUSES_WAKEUP = 268435456;
  ON_AFTER_RELEASE = 536870912;
  public
function newWakeLock(para1: jint; para2: JLString):
AOPowerManager.InnerWakeLock; overload; virtual;
procedure userActivity(para1: jlong; para2: jboolean); overload;
virtual;
procedure goToSleep(para1: jlong); overload; virtual;
function isScreenOn(): jboolean; overload; virtual;
procedure reboot(para1: JLString); overload; virtual;
  end;


Jonas
___
fpc-other maillist  -  fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org
https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other

Re: [fpc-other] how to force make.exe to work without binutils in windows

[Jonas Maebe]

On 22/05/2020 12:42, Mgr. Janusz Chmiel via fpc-other wrote:
> I do not know, if does make sense to compile PPCJVM for WIndows frou latest
> stable trunk, if there was An change in its source code between Dec 2017 and
> now.

There have been some changes, but no new features have been added. There
have been no major bugfixes either.

> The following command do not work from Windows, because Make need binutils
> installed. BUt I can not run Linux commands from WSL in A combination with
> Windows executable at The same time.

You don't need to use WSL to compile FPC under Windows (for JVM or for
any other target).

> When I type The following command
> make all FPC=c:\fpc\bin\i386\ppcjvm.exe JVM=1
> Make refuses to run without binutils installed. Overide binutils some
> special option some time also do not work.

FPC should come with the necessary binutils, so just running that
command in a regular cmd window should work.


Jonas
___
fpc-other maillist  -  fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org
https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other

Re: [fpc-other] Lazarus accessing dns on startup

[Jonas Maebe]

On 11/12/18 16:09, Vincent Snijders wrote:
I think it is caused by the OPM (online package manager). WIth Lazarus 
2.0.0RC3 Lazarus will honour the setting Never and Lazarus will not try 
to connect to packages.lazarus-ide.org  
to download a list of available packages.
The behaviour is configurable in Lazarus. Please open OPM(/Lazarus -> 
Menu-->Packages-->Online Package Manager/), then go to /Options-->Check

 > for Package Updates/ and select /Never/


Thanks.


Jonas
___
fpc-other maillist  -  fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other

[fpc-other] Lazarus accessing dns on startup

[Jonas Maebe]

Hi,

Why does Lazarus 2.0.0RC try to contact a DNS server on startup? And is 
there a way to disable this? Ideally, there would be a pop-up the first 
time it wants to do this asking whether it's okay and if not, store that 
as a preference and not do it anymore in the future.



Jonas
___
fpc-other maillist  -  fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other

Re: [fpc-other] [fpc-pascal] FPC Graphics options?

[Jonas Maebe]

Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
> Doesn't IBM, Linux, FreeBSD etc use OpenJDK? I was also under the
> impression that Oracle now also uses OpenJDK as the base for their
> releases - with some of their own additions. If this is all correct, it
> means they all pretty much use the same Java VM and Compiler
> implementations.

IBM has their own JVM, J9:
https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSYKE2_7.0.0/com.ibm.java.win.70.doc/user/java_jvm.html


Jonas
___
fpc-other maillist  -  fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other

Re: [fpc-other] [fpc-pascal] Missing messages

[Jonas Maebe]

Hi,

I accidentally rejected the message below by Allan 
 because I thought I was looking at the 
moderation queue of the fpc-pascal list. So here it is.



Jonas
FPC mailing lists admin


On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 09:38:43 +
Graeme Geldenhuys  wrote:

> On 2016-10-31 08:34, Bo Berglund wrote:
> > By what I have seen is that Lars cannot continue the web interface
> > to Gmane NNTP, but that the NNTP server will continue.
>
> Ah, thanks for clarifying that. I was under the impression that Gmane
> was going to close down completely. Nice to hear that part of it (the
> most important part) is still going to continue.

I really don't care, if his web interface goes away - never used it.
If he really would stop the gmane newsserver, I would just link
the mailinglist to my own newsserver, as I have done with lots of other
mailinglists, over the years :-)

I think the discussion about which model is the right one for FPC is
stupid, as no one will ever agree on anything.

OTOH, I have been running my own newsserver for 15 years - with a
gateway to a mailinglist server, and a very simple Webinterface on top
of the newsserver - and it has been running that way all the time on
OS/2 !  Please don't tell me - that there is not very simple solutions
for that ( and hopefully 15 years newer :-) ) for nix or win.

What I'm saying here is, that I would hope, that we could persuade the
FPC Team to set up such a solution - so that everybody would be happy.

It really do have a lot of advantages - especially if running
mailinglists and webforuns as separate things - because that would
split the community - the other solution joins forces.


  Allan.



___
fpc-other maillist  -  fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other

Re: [fpc-other] [fpc-pascal] Missing messages

[Jonas Maebe]

Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
> Embarcadero has a Delphi 10.1 (Berlin) Starter Edition for free at the
> moment. I downloaded a copy and can make it available for download if
> Embarcadero doesn't offer it any more.

The fact that they offered the software as a free download for personal
use does not give you the right to redistribute that software yourself.
Use and (re)distribution are two separate things under copyright.

Please do not offer or encourage infringing on Embarcadero's copyrights
on our mailing lists.


Jonas
___
fpc-other maillist  -  fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other

[fpc-other] Microsoft TypeScript bug report

[Jonas Maebe]

https://github.com/Microsoft/TypeScript/issues/8967

Fixed by Anders Hejlsberg: 
https://github.com/Microsoft/TypeScript/pull/8970/commits/3b1effb7df5e6221260652280d47b78ae9ecbfac 
:)

___
fpc-other maillist  -  fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other

Re: [fpc-other] Submitting fpc-devel mailing list to Gmane service.

[Jonas Maebe]

On 27/02/16 10:23, Cyrax wrote:

I propose adding fpc-devel list to Gmane service. fpc-pascal list is
there already and for completeness, fpc-devel would be nice addition.


Anyone can file such a request, since it's not a social list. Feel free 
to do so.



Jonas

___
fpc-other maillist  -  fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other

[fpc-other] Differences in opinion (was: )

[Jonas Maebe]

[moving to fpc-other]

Martin Schreiber wrote on Tue, 02 Feb 2016:


There are not many occasions where I have fundamental other opinions than
Jonas regarding FPC. Currently I can't remember a single instance.


The usefulness of supporting codepage-aware ansistrings :)


Jonas
___
fpc-other maillist  -  fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other

Re: [fpc-other] ESCAPE: Environment for the Simulation of Computer Architectures for the Purpose of Education

[Jonas Maebe]

Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote on Mon, 01 Feb 2016:

For a demo computer built using this sort of thing, it's obviously  
trivial to arrange it such that the simulator can load microcode  
from persistent storage, and can do something comparable for a boot  
loader.


What would be the comparable facility for the pipelined variant?  
Loading lookup tables to decode opcodes to VLIW, and then clocking  
those words through the pipeline?


You could use something FPGA-like to restructure your pipeline, but in  
practice I indeed think many current architectures simply combine  
microprogramming and pipelining, whereby the microprogramming  
translates the externally visible ISA into an internal ISA (VLIW or  
not), which in turn is executed in a pipelined fashion.



Jonas
___
fpc-other maillist  -  fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other

Re: [fpc-other] ESCAPE: Environment for the Simulation of Computer Architectures for the Purpose of Education

[Jonas Maebe]

Skybuck Flying wrote:

Running into a few issues with Delphi, would be nice if you could fix it
up a bit so that it runs under Delphi ?


I don't have Delphi. I've never even used Delphi. You can get the 
original Delphi version (including some bugs that were fixed later on) 
by checking out one of the first revisions.



Jonas
___
fpc-other maillist  -  fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other

[fpc-other] ESCAPE: Environment for the Simulation of Computer Architectures for the Purpose of Education

[Jonas Maebe]

Hi,

In the 90s, a professor and a PhD student at our department developed  
a simulator for pipelined and microprogrammed architectures (based on  
the Hennessy and Patterson DLX architecture), in Delphi. We've used it  
since then every year in the lab sessions for our computer  
architecuture classes. In 2010, I ported the program to FPC and  
Lazarus and we use it compiled for Linux/Qt in a VM nowadays. I did  
not have any Lazarus experience when I started that port (and I'm  
still far from an expert), but the process still went fairly smooth.


I recently asked for and got permission to publish the source code  
under the GPLv3, so here it is: https://github.com/jmaebe/ESCAPE



Jonas
___
fpc-other maillist  -  fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other

Re: [fpc-other] Processing passwords etc.

[Jonas Maebe]

[ moving to fpc-other ]

On 11 Apr 2014, at 11:03, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:

I expect that all sensitive sites (banks, google, etc) have taken  
immediate action.


That was still too late. See e.g. http://foxitsecurity.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/heartbleed-example.png 
 (from Yahoo mail). And as mentioned, private keys can also have been  
compromised. Given that pretty no one uses perfect forward security,  
it means that also all encrypted data captured in the past can now be  
decoded in that case.


That the login of my local tennis/pool/golf club was compromised is  
not really so scary, sorry.


What about information regarding persecuted human rights activists and  
the people they were in contact with? Journalists and their  
informants? Communications between lawyers and their clients?  
Sensitive information that can be used to blackmail people?



Jonas
___
fpc-other maillist  -  fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other

[fpc-other] Re: [fpc-pascal] Announcing PUMA Repository

[Jonas Maebe]

[moving to fpc-other because this has nothing to do with Pascal programming]


On 15 Dec 2013, at 15:55, waldo kitty wrote:

 how can my copy be different from your copy if everyone in the list gets a 
 copy of the same message via the same originating source from the same 
 originating writer's software? 

Mime types enable intermediate mail servers to change the content transfer 
encoding for whatever reason, since this encoding is part of the message and 
hence in theory it can be safely changed. And it's clear there were differences 
in this case because Johannes' copy was base64-encoded and mine wasn't.


Jonas

___
fpc-other maillist  -  fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other

Re: [fpc-other] What does Embarcadero spend there time on

[Jonas Maebe]

On 08 Mar 2013, at 16:14, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:


It's not karma, just some people that are outright idiots.


That does it, you're back on moderation. Please grow up, finally.


Jonas
FPC mailing list admin
___
fpc-other maillist  -  fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other

Re: [fpc-other] What does Embarcadero spend there time on

[Jonas Maebe]

On 08 Mar 2013, at 16:37, Doug Chamberlin wrote:

I think the original post by Graeme had nothing wrong with it.  
Short, to

the point, and including a short URL.


I agree. The moderation setting was in reaction to (a.o.) his  
subsequent messages.


I stopped following the other fpc and lazarus lists because I was  
tired of

this type of bickering.


Then you also didn't see what lead to this (third time in the mean  
time, every time followed by a promise to behave according to the  
civility expectations of our mailing lists -- no matter how idiotic,  
soft or whatever he may find them) moderation setting for Graeme.



Jonas___
fpc-other maillist  -  fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other

Re: [fpc-other] Re: fpc-other Digest, Vol 62, Issue 1

[Jonas Maebe]

On 06 Oct 2012, at 23:17, Tomas Hajny wrote:

 To be fair, it's probably useful to mention that the example forum 
 prepared by Peter should be better compared to the forum we currently 
 provide on FPC pages (community.freepascal.org) rather than NNTP 
 newsgroups, etc., which we do not provide at the moment anyway.

He unsubscribed from all FPC lists immediately after he sent his last message.


Jonas___
fpc-other maillist  -  fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other

Re: [fpc-other] Re: fpc-other Digest, Vol 62, Issue 1

[Jonas Maebe]

On 07 Oct 2012, at 12:17, Marco van de Voort wrote:

 Why run a separate forum from Lazarus?

The current fora are already separate, so switching to better forum software 
would have been an improvement as far as I'm concerned. Merging the FPC and 
Lazarus fora has been discussed/proposed for many years already and nothing 
ever happened. I guess one of the reasons is the integration of the community 
forum account system with the bug tracker though, and that probably wouldn't 
have been easier to address if the community site were switched over separately.

Anyway, the point is moot now.


Jonas

___
fpc-other maillist  -  fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other

[fpc-other] Re: GPL Lisence help

[Jonas Maebe]

(moved to the fpc-other list)


On 28 Jul 2012, at 07:28, Jorge Aldo G. de F. Junior wrote:

 Your module/lib is GPL but code linked to it must not be and this is
 not a violation of GPL.

It is a violation of the GPL if you distribute the result under a non-GPL 
compatible license.

 Think about this : Can you think about the relationship of your
 modules versus someone else modules as being intrinsecally the same
 relation between linux and proprietary apps that happen to run in
 linux ?

Yes, because the GPL explicitly mentions that system libraries (which it 
defines as including the OS kernel) are treated differently by the license, 
exactly to avoid this problem. Otherwise it would also be impossible to legally 
run GPL programs on Windows or Mac OS X.


Jonas

PS: please use the fpc-other list for off-topic discussions, that's what it's 
for.___
fpc-other maillist  -  fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other

Re: [fpc-other] Embarcadero plans to base C++ and Delphi compilers on LLVM

[Jonas Maebe]

On 16 Jul 2012, at 21:22, Travis Siegel wrote:

 And, I'd like to offer up my thanks for these quote old unquote systems.  I 
 still have (and use every day) a minimac with a ppc g4 processor in it, and 
 having fpc supported on it has saved me many times.
 I for one appreciate the effort put into supporting these non-current 
 platforms.

Fortunately, thanks to FPC's code generator design the effort is quite 
reasonable :) And as far as the RTL is concerned, pretty much all deprecations 
in Mac OS X are situated in the high level frameworks, which are barely used by 
the RTL/FCL (although they should probably use them a little more, for e.g. 
getting date/time formats etc).


Jonas___
fpc-other maillist  -  fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other

Re: [fpc-other] Embarcadero plans to base C++ and Delphi compilers on LLVM

[Jonas Maebe]

On 10 Jul 2012, at 22:38, Florian Klämpfl wrote:

 Am 10.07.2012 09:45, schrieb Sven Barth:
 Hello together!
 
 Today I stumpled upon this
 http://www.itwriting.com/blog/5966-embarcadero-adopts-open-source-clang-for-future-c-versions.html
 and maybe some of you will find this interesting.
 
 Let's see who will be first with LLVM support: Embarcadero or we ;)
 
 Having LLVM as sole fpc backend would probably take 90% out of my fun of
 fpc development :(

I don't think it will ever be the sole FPC backend, for several reasons:
a) I doubt LLVM will ever support all platforms we support (go32v2, OS/2, ...), 
and older platforms it does currently support (e.g. Mac OS X/ppc) will probably 
become unsupported in the future because of bitrot. Because it moves so fast 
and often breaks/redesigns internal APIs, it requires extremely dedicated 
platform maintainers to keep a platform tier 1 (which is another reason for not 
relying on LLVM as sole backend, unless we want to keep support for some old 
LLVM versions that did support that target around forever)
b) our direct code generators will probably always be faster in terms of 
compilation speed, so they'll remain very useful even on supported platforms 
for debug/development builds
c) some people (you :) are not really interested in working on LLVM support

And as far as interesting things to do are concerned: there will always be high 
level optimizations that we can do much better at the Pascal level (like the 
function devirtualization that's part of our WPO) than LLVM will ever be able 
to do, because we have much more semantic and high level information. 
Additionally, LLVM has several attributes you can add to annotate functions 
(has no globally visible side-effects, optimize for size), parameters (e.g. 
pointer passed as parameter is no longer valid after the function, such as 
shortstring value parameters of which we make a copy on the callee side), data 
locations (e.g. range metadata, for subrange types), etc. that you can tweak 
via FPC to make it generate the most optimal code.


Jonas

___
fpc-other maillist  -  fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other

[fpc-other] Fwd: A Trio of Historical Recollections

[Jonas Maebe]

For the historians :)


From: Dan Allen danalle...@airwired.net
Date: Tue 11 Oct 2011 05:11:35 GMT+02:00
To: development MPW mpw-...@lists.apple.com
Subject: A Trio of Historical Recollections

26 years ago today, on October 10, 1985, MacPascal 1.0 was completed.   
This was an interpreted Pascal application for the Mac.  You could see  
your code in one window, and the output of your program in another  
window.  It bolded keywords and really was a snazzy program in its  
day.  It inspired LightSpeed C and a host of other programs.   
(Microsoft Basic and Apple's unshipped Basic were in this same vein.)


Also, we had found a bad MPW Shell memory bug that was fixed on  
October 10, 1986, thus giving us MPW 1.0.1, 25 years ago today.


And another piece of ancient history: Microsoft completed Microsoft  
File 1.02 on October 11, 1985.  Microsoft File was a nice database in  
the early days of the Mac.  When OverVue came out and RAM increased,  
it beat File on speed but File was disk-based and could hold more data.


Dan


___
fpc-other maillist  -  fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other

Re: [fpc-other] Delphi on x64

[Jonas Maebe]

On 06 Apr 2011, at 14:54, Travis Siegel wrote:

 There is a significant speed increase for running 64-bit vs the same program 
 in 32-bit mode.  Especially when manipulating graphics, calculating large 
 spreadsheets, or similar functions.
 Recoding an avi file into mp4 in 64-bit mode is significantly faster than the 
 same process in 32-bit mode.

The main reason is that x86-64 adds 8 extra registers that you can use compared 
to 32 bit mode. For tight loops, keeping more data in registers can make a big 
difference. That's specific to i386 vs x86-64 rather than 32 vs 64 bit, since 
on most architectures the 32 and 64 bit versions have the same number of 
registers (just 32 vs 64 bit in size).


Jonas___
fpc-other maillist  -  fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other

Re: [fpc-other] Fork

[Jonas Maebe]

On 22 Oct 2010, at 10:31, Adem wrote:


Focus on unit compilation/loading and/or the register allocator?

Of course, you could do that (and by the looks of it, it already is  
on your mental roadmap too), but are they really --really-- that  
critical?


Fixing the the unit reloading logic is quite critical, because it's  
the main cause of crashes and other weird errors you sometimes (or  
regularly, depending on how many circular dependencies you have and  
the kind of changes you make) get when recompiling units without  
erasing them first or without using the -B command line parameter.


That said, I fully support the creation of a fork of FPC by everyone  
who thinks that is a good idea. If something good comes out of it, we  
can always integrate it later (or who knows, main FPC development  
could eventually move to that fork), and in the short term it will  
save a lot of time spent on elaborate discussions by everyone involved.



Jonas
___
fpc-other maillist  -  fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other

Re: [fpc-other] Fork

[Jonas Maebe]

On 22 Oct 2010, at 13:38, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:

This is where I think FPC and Lazarus teams get it all wrong. Not  
everybody
wants to join for life, hold hands and cuddle around the source  
code.
Many times I use a tool, find a bug or annoyance, fix it and  
contribute

back by supplying a patch and most importantly, MOVE ON.


That's fine for simple patches and such patches are normally directly  
committed to FPC. If someone wants to rewrite/restructure half the  
compiler however, then it's not fine, because such a patch can easily  
cause more work than it removes without offering enough benefits that  
offset this work.



Jonas
___
fpc-other maillist  -  fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other

[fpc-other] Discussing new features (was: [fpc-devel] is that intended? private type section in classes versus visibility)

[Jonas Maebe]

On 12 Aug 2010, at 17:57, Joost van der Sluis wrote:
 On Mon, 2010-08-02 at 10:41 +0200, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
 Just because I discussed something, doesn't mean I will implement it
 immediately. I have a large todo list, and items that make it onto my todo
 list, DO get implemented (in my own time).
 
 This approach will lead to a lot of wasted time of the core developers.
 They have to discuss all kinds of ideas, but none of them get
 implemented. 

Please try to avoid making statements that can be construed as representing the 
opinion of the core developers. Even in case everyone would agree with what 
you say, not everyone (in this case: I) may feel as strongly about it, or 
people may be uncomfortable with how you express your opinion or the moment at 
which you do it.

In general, everyone speaks for themselves on these mailing lists, other than 
when announcing new releases or other coordinated announcements.


Jonas___
fpc-other maillist  -  fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other

[fpc-other] Re: [fpc-pascal] Pascal dialect -- was: Re: fpc-pascal Digest, Vol 72, Issue 12

[Jonas Maebe]

On 04 Jun 2010, at 12:54, spir wrote:

 I'm surprised of this, fpc still systematically trying to follow Delphi, 
 after so many years.

In some ways we follow Delphi (mostly language features), in other ways Delphi 
follows us (e.g. platform support). Delphi and FPC are part of the same 
ecosystem. We're not trying to replace Delphi, show them the one true way, or 
anything like that.

 I can understand that at the beginning the fpc team needed to mostly comply 
 with Delphi, as de facto object pascal standard.

You're saying that as if a standard is a bad thing. Standards, de fact or 
otherwise, are good. It helps with reusing knowledge, sharing code and avoiding 
a proliferation of ad hoc features that result in a mess that can no longer be 
unentangled.

As an aside, in the early days we were in fact a lot less strict in following 
Borland than we are today.

 But then, fpc could live its own life, possibly taking the best of Delphi's 
 innovations, but not having as main goal to be always running after it.

The main goal is implementing stuff we care about. If Delphi already 
implemented something similar, then unless there is an extremely good reason 
for doing things differently, it is stupid to implement it in a different way 
simply because you don't want to follow Delphi:
* you waste time reinventing the wheel
* you waste time adding support for the Delphi-compatible way later on
* you waste other people's time because they have to relearn the feature and/or 
maintain two different code bases
* you risk making mistakes in the design that Borland avoided (as I've 
mentioned many times already on the mailing list, we've had to revert many we 
do this different than Borland because they implemented useless and stupid 
limitations language features over the years because our improved version 
suffered from flaws we didn't realise at first)

 so why not having already made the step of declaring fpc a (object) Pascal 
 dialect of its own?

We have. It's called ObjFPC mode. And another one is called Objective-Pascal 
mode. But that's not the point. Our main goal is not to design languages. Our 
main goal is to let people program on Object Pascal on any platform they want 
(well: on any platform that people add and maintain support for in FPC).


Jonas___
fpc-other maillist  -  fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other

Re: [fpc-other] Re: [fpc-pascal] Pascal dialect -- was: Re: fpc-pascal Digest, Vol 72, Issue 12

[Jonas Maebe]

On 04 Jun 2010, at 19:27, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:

 This brings me to another question. Don't you guys feel that FPC is
 good enough to stand on it's own feet.

It has nothing to do with being good enough or not. Please read the mail you 
replied to again (second paragraph I wrote).

 So what's the benefit of Delphi compatibility?

See the bullet list in the mail you replied to (fourth paragraph I wrote).

 To keep those
 developers that can't make up there minds if they want to switch or
 not happy? They will probably will never contribute to FPC either, so
 what's the point in trying to please them the whole time.

As I said in the mail you replied to (first paragraph I wrote): FPC and Delphi 
are part of the same ecosystem. If you keep looking at it as if it is about us 
versus them, you will probably remain unhappy forever with how FPC evolves, 
because it will always seem as if we are doing various things out of servitude 
to Embarcadero and its horde of evil Delphi users.


Jonas

___
fpc-other maillist  -  fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other

Re: [fpc-other] Re: [fpc-pascal] Apple forbids fpc applications on iPhone

[Jonas Maebe]

On 10 Apr 2010, at 11:08, Alexander Grau wrote:

 They didn't (couldn't?) write it in their agreement, but I think that's what 
 they actually mean ('Apps need to be written with our tools').

I don't see why they wouldn't have written that in the agreement if that's 
indeed what they meant.


Jonas___
fpc-other maillist  -  fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other

Re: [fpc-other] Re: [fpc-pascal] Apple forbids fpc applications on iPhone

[Jonas Maebe]

On 09 Apr 2010, at 13:26, Marco van de Voort wrote:


In our previous episode, Henry Vermaak said:
So then I guess fpc can fake it?  The whole thing just seems so  
absurd.


That amounts to a constant cat-and-mouse game, requiring vast  
resources.


It would most probably result in a cease-and-desist letter from  
Apple's lawyers.



Jonas: what are your plans regarding this?



None.


Jonas
___
fpc-other maillist  -  fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other

Re: [fpc-other] Re: [fpc-pascal] Apple forbids fpc applications on iPhone

[Jonas Maebe]

On 09 Apr 2010, at 14:17, Henry Vermaak wrote:


Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or
JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine...


FWIW, I've read some other comments in the mean time (on Apple's  
closed iPhone developer forms) from developers complaining about the  
fact that virtually every somewhat recent AAA game title contains  
scripting code in one form of another for various purposes (scripting  
non-playable characters, enemy behaviour, ...). So I guess that Apple  
will have to make this requirement somewhat less restrictive in any  
case.


Hence, it would be useful if enough people send in their FPC-related  
comments via http://developer.apple.com/contact/, so the reworded  
version could maybe take into account our situation as well.



Jonas
___
fpc-other maillist  -  fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other

Re: [fpc-other] Re: [fpc-pascal] Apple forbids fpc applications on iPhone

[Jonas Maebe]

On 09 Apr 2010, at 18:35, Travis Siegel wrote:

 I don't think you need to jail break anything to put apps on the phone that 
 don't come from the store, what's preventing folks from just uploading the 
 apps to their phones then executing them as normal?

Apple's code signing process. An application must be code signed using a 
developer certificate for that particular iPod/iPhone/iPad for the OS to want 
to run the application on that particular device. You can create certificates 
for 100 different devices via Apple's website (so people have to send you their 
device ID and then you can create a certificate for that device), and then it's 
over for a year (the certificates are valid for a year, and you can only reset 
the list of devices for which you have created certificates once a year).


Jonas___
fpc-other maillist  -  fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other

Re: [fpc-other] Re: [fpc-pascal] Apple forbids fpc applications on iPhone

[Jonas Maebe]

On 09 Apr 2010, at 18:35, Travis Siegel wrote:

 perhaps there's something I'm not aware of here, but the developer kit is 
 free to anyone who has an ADC account, you merely need to register with apple 
 to be able to download the developer kit and develop apps.

Getting the certificates required to code sign applications (the process 
required to be able to run them on an actual device rather than only in a 
simulator) costs $99/€79 per year.


Jonas___
fpc-other maillist  -  fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other

Re: [fpc-other] FPC mantis

[Jonas Maebe]

On 24 Feb 2010, at 13:59, brian wrote:

I'm using Firefox 3.5.8 under Kubuntu 9.1. I've registered and  
confirmed an account, and logged in, and when I try to report an  
issue I get a dialog up which asks me to select a project. I select  
FPC, click 'select project' and get a blank screen. Other sites  
still load just fine, but I cannot get past the blank screen after  
I've selected the project.


Anyone know the answer?


Sorry, I've never heard of anyone having that problem before...


Jonas
___
fpc-other maillist  -  fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other

[fpc-other] Koders.com statistics

[Jonas Maebe]

http://www.pr-inside.com/black-duck-software-and-koders-com-identify-r1646394.htm

Delphi
Most popular search keyword: thread.
Most downloaded file was IcsMD5.pas from the Simple Reverse Proxy
(pxy)(pxy) project
Most viewed Delphi language project: FreePascal.

:)


Jonas___
fpc-other maillist  -  fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other

[fpc-other] Mixing

[Jonas Maebe]

In case anyone likes mixing Pascal, C#, C++, Objective-C and  
JavaScript syntax and still compile the result with FPC: http://freeze-dev.de/blog/?p=433

___
fpc-other maillist  -  fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other

Re: [fpc-other] Re: [fpc-pascal] Illogical automatic dereferencing

[Jonas Maebe]

Florian Klaempfl wrote on Tue, 13 Oct 2009:


Jonas Maebe schrieb:

Only allowing it for pchar/pwidechar, I guess.


Then another person pops up and asks why it is allowed only for  
pchar/pwidechar being illogical because this is not orthogonal.


Undoubtedly. I guess the best solution is to have that Delphi switch  
so everyone can set the behaviour he/she prefers.


Besides the fact that I think that the pointer to array work around  
would be really hacking e.g. due to range checking.


You can always do (pointertype+x)^, but I guess that's not acceptable  
either because it doesn't look very nice. It's more explicit about the  
intention though, imo.



Jonas


This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

___
fpc-other maillist  -  fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other

Re: [fpc-other] Looking for remote working freelancer for a C++ to FPC porting project

[Jonas Maebe]

On 09 Oct 2009, at 12:08, Alexander Grau wrote:

We are a small company dedicated to data recovery software and are  
going to port over a mix of 18K C++ and some Delphi code to a cross  
platform (Mac+Win) data recovery tool. We are looking for a  
FreePascal programmer (student, freelancer, self-employed, etc.)  
that can assist our 2 developer team in this porting work. The C++  
code needs to be translated 1:1, some Delphi code can be reused for  
this work.


Feel free to also post this on fpc-pascal (to reach a wider audience).  
As long as we don't get inundated with 20 job offers per day, this is  
no problem.



Jonas
___
fpc-other maillist  -  fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other

Re: [fpc-other] FPCUnit, DUnit2 and JUnit licenses question

[Jonas Maebe]

On 21 Jul 2009, at 11:28, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:

Or maybe CPL is incompatible with (L)GPL and none of the 3 products  
may actually be bundled with FPC?


The CPL is not compatible with the (L)GPL: 
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#CommonPublicLicense10

So unless the authors of both JUnit and DUnit gave permission to also  
distribute their code under the modified LGPL, fpcunit cannot be  
distributed under that license.


In general, packages should indeed be licensed under the modified LGPL  
for them to be distributed with FPC, but maybe an exception could be  
made for a unit testing framework. After all, you seldom distribute  
unit tests, so the license is of minor importance. But if fpcunit  
cannot be licensed under the modified LGPL, then the license headers  
in its source code definitely have to be changed.



Jonas

(CC'ing Michael, since he's not subscribed to fpc-other; Michael,  
Graeme's original message can be found here: http://lists.freepascal.org/lists/fpc-other/2009-July/000300.html 
 )

___
fpc-other maillist  -  fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other

Re: [fpc-other] FPCUnit, DUnit2 and JUnit licenses question

[Jonas Maebe]

On 21 Jul 2009, at 12:44, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:


Michael Van Canneyt wrote:

FPCunit was implemented from scratch by Dean Zobec, and he gave it to


So porting a project (even to point where it shows exact same  
behaviour or not) to a different language does not constitute as  
derivative work?


It does, but implementation from scratch  porting. Software  
interfaces/APIs cannot be copyrighted (at least not in the US, see http://www.eetimes.com/news/design/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=201801579 
 ), so writing a different implementation for an existing API does  
not constitute creating a derivative work.


I would have thought it is still derivative work. Considering that  
even the Money example from JUnit was ported to FPCUnit.


Maybe the Money example should be under CPL (if it was distributed  
like that).



Jonas
___
fpc-other maillist  -  fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other

[fpc-other] Job: port a vcl control to Lazarus/FreePascal

[Jonas Maebe]

http://www.rentacoder.com/RentACoder/misc/BidRequests/ShowBidRequest.asp?lngBidRequestId=1188787
___
fpc-other maillist  -  fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other

[fpc-other] CodeGear websites unreachable

[Jonas Maebe]

Hello,

In case someone wonders why most CodeGear websites are unreachable  
(e.g., the ones I mentioned in my comments here: http://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=13481 
 ), apparently a bunch of fiber cables were cut in the San Francisco  
area: http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/09/2044205


And:

$ traceroute forums.codegear.com
traceroute to forums.codegear.com (12.233.153.144), 64 hops max, 40  
byte packets

 1  speedtouch (192.168.1.1)  25.605 ms  95.085 ms  99.862 ms
 2  1.92-245-81.adsl-dyn.isp.belgacom.be (81.245.92.1)  10.006 ms   
11.093 ms  10.494 ms
 3  240.255-247-81.adsl-static.isp.belgacom.be (81.247.255.240)   
11.841 ms  11.627 ms  12.615 ms
 4  ge1-0.intlstr1.isp.belgacom.be (194.78.0.146)  12.495 ms  
ge0-0.intlstr1.isp.belgacom.be (194.78.0.46)  12.194 ms  11.512 ms

 5  195.219.228.13 (195.219.228.13)  12.364 ms  12.641 ms  12.070 ms
 6  195.219.228.2 (195.219.228.2)  11.945 ms  12.709 ms  12.192 ms
 7  if-6-0.core2.AD1-Amsterdam.as6453.net (80.231.81.9)  16.908 ms   
17.280 ms  17.365 ms
 8  if-3-0-0.core1.NTO-NewYork.as6453.net (216.6.82.69)  101.303 ms   
101.842 ms  102.148 ms
 9  Vlan14.icore1.NTO-NewYork.as6453.net (216.6.82.2)  102.433 ms   
101.931 ms  106.797 ms

10  192.205.35.13 (192.205.35.13)  133.532 ms  180.856 ms  199.625 ms
11  cr1.n54ny.ip.att.net (12.122.131.94)  169.911 ms  170.205 ms   
169.855 ms
12  cr2.cgcil.ip.att.net (12.122.1.2)  169.453 ms  169.757 ms  169.758  
ms
13  cr1.cgcil.ip.att.net (12.122.2.53)  169.846 ms  169.234 ms   
169.384 ms
14  cr1.sffca.ip.att.net (12.122.4.121)  169.417 ms  169.151 ms   
169.881 ms

15  * * *

Same goes for qc.embarcadero.com. Given the name and the problems, I  
guess sffca is located in San Francisco.



Jonas
___
fpc-other maillist  -  fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other

Re: [fpc-other] Running Mac OS X in emulator on Windows ?

[Jonas Maebe]

On 13 Dec 2008, at 02:49, Skybuck Flying wrote:


So far this has been one gigant waste of effort and time.


If you want to complain that you can't get a pirated product to work,  
please do it elsewhere.


You're now also moderated on this list.


Jonas
FPC lists admin
___
fpc-other maillist  -  fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other

[fpc-other] Damn Vulnerable Linux 1.5 released

[Jonas Maebe]

and one of the new things is that it includes Lazarus: http://www.damnvulnerablelinux.org/index.php/eng/Company/News/DVL%201.5%20has%20now%20left%20planning%20status.%20Bug%20Fixing%20started 
!


Not sure if that's a good or a bad sign.
___
fpc-other maillist  -  fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other

[fpc-other] [job] Porting Delphi XLS reader library to FPC/Win64

[Jonas Maebe]

See http://www.getacoder.com/projects/porting_some_code_fpc_87172.html  
for details

___
fpc-other maillist  -  fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other

Re: [fpc-other] Re: [fpc-pascal] PCRE

[Jonas Maebe]

On 12 Nov 2007, at 23:13, L wrote:


The fact that the freepascal compiler is distributed with a license
called GPL is in fact very much on topic since it relates to the  
Pascal

compiler, download, installation, etc.


Quite possibly, and there have in fact been discussions about FPC's  
licensing on fpc-pascal and/or fpc-devel in the past.


Statements in the spirit of license X sucks because it is less free  
than license Y (no matter how much you consider that to be an  
objective truth) however do not invite discussion about the  
consequences of FPC's licensing, but rather provoke emotionally laden  
flamewars about the generic properties of various licenses, and later  
on probably the people/organisations behind hem.


You can do that here or on Slashdot if you want to, but not on fpc- 
pascal/fpc-devel.



Jonas
___
fpc-other maillist  -  fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other

Re: [fpc-other] Mac Questions

[Jonas Maebe]

On 30 Oct 2007, at 20:14, L wrote:

Can one use a Mac to compile BSD web programs and then upload these  
BSD programs

to a BSD server?

Can one create ELF on Mac and upload to a linux server fairly  
easily.. (compared

to Windows where it is harder to make Elf's)


Cross compiling on a Mac is no more difficult than cross-compiling on  
BSD or Linux. The only thing to keep in mind is that if you need to  
generate i386 programs, the host compiler has to be an i386 binary as  
well currently.



Jonas
___
fpc-other maillist  -  fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other

Re: [fpc-other] Standards (was: inflammatory comment)

[Jonas Maebe]

On 19 Oct 2007, at 11:34, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote:


On 10/19/07, Jonas Maebe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

RTF is an pretty established implementation standard


Actually RTF is not a standard.


That's why I called it an implementation standard (in the same way  
that Delphi-style Object Pascal is an implementation standard).



Jonas
___
fpc-other maillist  -  fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other