Re: [fpc-devel] Discussion about "Dynamic packages"

Am 13.04.2017 23:54 schrieb "gabor" : > > > > W dniu 2017-04-13 o 22:27, Sven Barth via fpc-devel pisze: > >> And it's not about saving RAM or disk memory! It's about *binary code >> reuse*, the ability to fix a bug in multiple executables by merely >> fixing the one bug in a

Re: [fpc-devel] Discussion about "Dynamic packages"

04/13/17 23:50:35, (Marco van de Voort) : Thanks, i understand all of this. This what i call plugin system and i know for what it need. In conclusion: Dynamic Packages needs for smooth plugin system in FreePascal. 04/13/17 23:27:06, Sven Barth via fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] Discussion about "Dynamic packages"

W dniu 2017-04-13 o 22:27, Sven Barth via fpc-devel pisze: And it's not about saving RAM or disk memory! It's about *binary code reuse*, the ability to fix a bug in multiple executables by merely fixing the one bug in a package. Should not all packages depend on the "fixed" package also be

Re: [fpc-devel] Discussion about "Dynamic packages"

In our previous episode, Sven Barth via fpc-devel said: > And it's not about saving RAM or disk memory! It's about *binary code > reuse*, the ability to fix a bug in multiple executables by merely > fixing the one bug in a package. And for extensions too. If a program has a package N that

Re: [fpc-devel] Discussion about "Dynamic packages"

On 13.04.2017 20:36, Bishop wrote: > 04/13/17 10:47:54, Michael Van Canneyt : >> Dynamic Packages will in each case be optional, they will not be not > mandatory. > The main question is a bit different. Is performance penalties from > Dynamic Packages will be optional? I

Re: [fpc-devel] Discussion about "Dynamic packages"

04/13/17 10:47:54, Michael Van Canneyt : > Dynamic Packages will in each case be optional, they will not be not mandatory. The main question is a bit different. Is performance penalties from Dynamic Packages will be optional? I try show example. Let's provide that we

Re: [fpc-devel] Discussion about "Dynamic packages"

Am 13.04.2017 12:03 schrieb "Mattias Gaertner" : > > On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 11:28:02 +0200 > Sven Barth via fpc-devel wrote: > > >[...] > > The intended purpose of dynamic packages (and libraries in general) is not > > to save memory (in

Re: [fpc-devel] Discussion about "Dynamic packages"

On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 11:28:02 +0200 Sven Barth via fpc-devel wrote: >[...] > The intended purpose of dynamic packages (and libraries in general) is not > to save memory (in fact a binary plus packages would be much larger than > the statically compiled binary), but

Re: [fpc-devel] Discussion about "Dynamic packages"

Am 13.04.2017 08:44 schrieb "Bishop via fpc-devel" < fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org>: > At first I would like to designate a circle of tasks which in principle can effectively decide by means of system of dynamic packets. Lets remember for what DLL`s and SO`s was be created. It was for memory

Re: [fpc-devel] Discussion about "Dynamic packages"

On Wed, 12 Apr 2017, Bishop via fpc-devel wrote: I had some fears concerning idea development of "Dynamic packages" in FreePascal and possible performance penalties of programs from these changes. This why i start this discussion and try wrote some of my ideas or/and proposal that, as i

[fpc-devel] Discussion about "Dynamic packages"

I had some fears concerning idea development of "Dynamic packages" in FreePascal and possible performance penalties of programs from these changes. This why i start this discussion and try wrote some of my ideas or/and proposal that, as i think, can help make FreePascal better. At first I