I have a problem installing a third-party package using the fpcmake build
system. I built a cross-compiler for WinCE including a complete RTL
for arm-wince. I now want to install a third-party package into an
arm-wince unit hierarchy on a WindowsXP system. Make is assuming that you
On Wednesday 17 May 2006 20:50, Marco van de Voort wrote:
Having to check and guard each and every string operation is also not
really productive. KR tried that :-)
And I thought they did it the other way around. Leaving the check as an
exercise to the coder. ;-)
Vinzent.
Jonas Maebe wrote:
On 17 mei 2006, at 19:59, L505 wrote:
What do you guys thing about the idea to implement what DEC Pascal and
Extended Pascal
have - a 2 byte length ShortString (MediumString?), uprdade *some* of
the path related
ShortStrings to be MediumString[1000] instead of
On ut , 2006-05-09 at 09:35 +0200, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
I heard that the gtk1 libs under FreeBSD are libglib-12.so, libgdk-12.so and
libgtk-12.so.
But at the moment the linklib directive for FreeBSD defines
{$ifdef FreeBSD}
gtkdll='gtk12';
{$linklib gtk12}
without the
Hi
I tried to do the fpc tests and encountered a bug. The file tests/
test/cg/obj/darwin/powerpc/tcext5.o was missing. I created it with
gcc -c cext5.c from tests/test/cg/obj/tcext5.c. Then the test run
went through. However, I am not sure how cext5.c should be compiled.
The notes in
On 18 mei 2006, at 13:54, Schindler Karl-Michael wrote:
I tried to do the fpc tests and encountered a bug. The file tests/
test/cg/obj/darwin/powerpc/tcext5.o was missing. I created it with
gcc -c cext5.c from tests/test/cg/obj/tcext5.c. Then the test run
went through. However, I am not
Hi,
What is a recommend setup so I can easily switch between the 2.0.2 and
2.0.x and 2.1.1 versions for testing fixes/changes and what impact
they would have on my applications.
I just got a confirmation from Mantis that one of the bugs I reported
has been fixed in 2.0.x and a fix and possible
Op Thu, 18 May 2006, schreef Graeme Geldenhuys:
Hi,
What is a recommend setup so I can easily switch between the 2.0.2 and
2.0.x and 2.1.1 versions for testing fixes/changes and what impact
they would have on my applications.
I just got a confirmation from Mantis that one of the bugs I
On Thu, 2006-05-18 at 17:07 +0200, Daniël Mantione wrote:
Op Thu, 18 May 2006, schreef Graeme Geldenhuys:
Hi,
What is a recommend setup so I can easily switch between the 2.0.2 and
2.0.x and 2.1.1 versions for testing fixes/changes and what impact
they would have on my applications.
On 5/18/06, Joost van der Sluis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you upgrade from svn, just do 'make install', then 2.0.x will be
placed in /usr/local/lib/fpc/2.0.x and 2.1.x in /usr/local/lib/fpc/2.1.1
Change your fpc.cfg to use $fpcversion instead of 2.x.x
This sounds like a easy way or doing
On 18 mei 2006, at 18:17, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
This sounds like a easy way or doing it, thanks!
Can one change the installation path with the make install command?
make install INSTALL_PREFIX=/opt
Jonas
___
fpc-devel maillist -
Hello,
From: Jonas Maebe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 17 mei 2006, at 20:19, L505 wrote:
We wouldn't have to use sysutils yet.. we could make a custom Dos unit
which used longstrings instead of short strings, but keep the old
Dos unit for compatibility..
This still means that someone has to finish
Op Thu, 18 May 2006, schreef Thomas Schatzl:
Also assembler symbols/labels should get extended to strings 255 in the
future because there is already a bug open in which it is demonstrated that it
is possible to create too long labels which makes a program uncompilable.
Or some scheme
Hello,
From: Dani?l Mantione [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Op Thu, 18 May 2006, schreef Thomas Schatzl:
Also assembler symbols/labels should get extended to strings 255
in the future because there is already a bug open in which it is
demonstrated that it is possible to create too long labels which makes
L Can someone tell me how slow/fast a dynamic array is compared to a fixed
one? Say you used
L a dynamic array of chars or dynamic array of shortstrings - would the
dynamic array be
L slow on a general basis? Maybe we will have to resort to benchmarks using
the cpu timer.
L And then there is
But it's only a matter of time:
probably Windows will become totally utf16 (not really unicode, but
at least utf16) really soon (at least in newer versions in a way
incompatible with current ones).
A small correction, utf16 is a type of unicode.
thanks,
--
Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho
On 5/18/06, Пётр Косаревский с mail.ru [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
L Can someone tell me how slow/fast a dynamic array is compared to a fixed
one? Say you used
L a dynamic array of chars or dynamic array of shortstrings - would the
dynamic array be
L slow on a general basis? Maybe we will have to
17 matches
Mail list logo
