OK, so why don't you just say that you do not understand ?!
Let me start again. I never said that you, Micha, Daniel, Peter,
Florian, or even the big bad wolf should implement all of the given
syscall functions in the each platform in the world.
The design of Do_SysCall at this time is hurting
ik schreef:
OK, so why don't you just say that you do not understand ?!
You don't understand.
Let me start again. I never said that you, Micha, Daniel, Peter,
Florian, or even the big bad wolf should implement all of the given
syscall functions in the each platform in the world.
The design
To me it seems like some kind of trick, to extend a record at runtime.
The empty record field, functions as a sort of offset/label/pointer if you
will to the new fields that will will be extended to the record by simply
allocating more memory then the size of the record.
Then this
Op Fri, 15 Feb 2008, schreef Skybuck Flying:
To me it seems like some kind of trick, to extend a record at runtime.
The empty record field, functions as a sort of offset/label/pointer if you
will to the new fields that will will be extended to the record by simply
allocating more memory
Op woensdag 13-02-2008 om 14:59 uur [tijdzone -0600], schreef Jesus
Reyes:
--- Joost van der Sluis [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
Hi all,
fpc 2.3.1 and 2.2.1 now have local indexes support for sqldb.
(TBufDataset)
I would like it if you can test if it works ok for you before we
--- Joost van der Sluis [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
Op woensdag 13-02-2008 om 14:59 uur [tijdzone -0600], schreef Jesus
Reyes:
--- Joost van der Sluis [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
Hi all,
fpc 2.3.1 and 2.2.1 now have local indexes support for sqldb.
(TBufDataset)
I
ik schrieb:
1. There is a support only for up to 6 parameters (plus the instruction
itself).
Which syscall has more parameters?
2. It support only integer base parameters, while you can not pass
pointers, chars, array, record or floating point types.
Did you just calculate how much
On Feb 16, 2008 10:03 PM, Florian Klaempfl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ik schrieb:
1. There is a support only for up to 6 parameters (plus the instruction
itself).
Which syscall has more parameters?
I don't know, but then again, up until now I did not require to use
syscall on my own (at
On 16 Feb 2008, at 21:55, ik wrote:
Exactly my point on the design in the first place. The corrent design
takes integers only. Regarding the Linux Kernel, I did not knew about
the floating points issues,
I don't know of a single OS kernel which supports using floating point
in kernel
On Saturday 16 February 2008 14:55:24 ik wrote:
On Feb 16, 2008 10:03 PM, Florian Klaempfl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ik schrieb:
1. There is a support only for up to 6 parameters (plus the instruction
itself).
Which syscall has more parameters?
I don't know, but then again, up until
I finally setup a SourceForge project for the PTVM:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/ptvm/
Right now it's at beta 0.3, and can translate and compile (with MTASC)
a simple Hello World application. I'm working on translating types,
sentences, etc. I'm using SVN since I have more experience with
Hi Marco,
Im glad to see that, Ill check out and keep in touch.
[]s
Cesar Romero
I finally setup a SourceForge project for the PTVM:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/ptvm/
Right now it's at beta 0.3, and can translate and compile (with MTASC)
a simple Hello World application. I'm working
ik wrote:
I think that the entire design of the Do_SysCall is malformed in the
way it assumes the number of parameters and also the type of them, so
as I asked before, how I can either call the syscall command without
assembler, or how I can pass an array of const (prior to that I asked
13 matches
Mail list logo
