Hi,
I'm one of those developers who takes hints and warnings seriously and I
must say at least once a week it helps me find a bugs even before running
the program. So when I got a warning about some uninitialized variable
passed by reference (Delphi 5 is ok with such variable being uninitialized),
On 21.11.2010 16:22, Max Vlasov wrote:
Hi,
I'm one of those developers who takes hints and warnings seriously and I
must say at least once a week it helps me find a bugs even before
running the program. So when I got a warning about some uninitialized
variable passed by reference (Delphi 5 is ok
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Sven Barth pascaldra...@googlemail.comwrote:
On 21.11.2010 16:22, Max Vlasov wrote:
But is it possible to do the same (partially, gradually or in any other
way) for the legacy code that keeps the interface compatibility with
Delphi. For example
On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 18:54:13 +0100, Helmut Hartl helmut.ha...@firmos.at
wrote:
Running the above program gives
1) C++ / FPC 64 Bit
6.3846106530
6.3846106530
2) FPC32 Bit
6.3846106530
6.3846111610
Is this explainable or wrong behaviour ?
First suspect candidate: the intermediate
On Sun, 21 Nov 2010, Max Vlasov wrote:
Hi,
I'm one of those developers who takes hints and warnings seriously and I must
say at least once a week it helps me find a bugs even before running the
program. So when I got a warning about some uninitialized variable passed by
reference (Delphi 5
While stabilizing my bullet physics port i saw some differences in
floating point behaviour between c++ and fpc32 and fpc 64 bit.
In question is a simple dot product.
The function :
result := a*d+b*e+c*f;
Gives different results( 6.3846106530 vs 6.3846111610 ) depending
on the usage of
Am 21.11.2010 um 18:54 schrieb Helmut Hartl:
While stabilizing my bullet physics port i saw some differences in
floating point behaviour between c++ and fpc32 and fpc 64 bit.
In question is a simple dot product.
The function :
result := a*d+b*e+c*f;
Gives different results(
On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 20:35:42 +0100, Michael Müller
mueller_mich...@alice-dsl.net wrote:
Single has 7 significant digits.
mode style=nitpicking
Six significant digits. The seventh already is unreliable.
/mode
Vinzent.
___
fpc-pascal maillist -
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 9:22 PM, Michael Van Canneyt mich...@freepascal.org
wrote:
On Sun, 21 Nov 2010, Max Vlasov wrote:
Hi,
I'm one of those developers who takes hints and warnings seriously and I
must say at least once a week it helps me find a bugs even before running
the
program.
In our previous episode, Vinzent H?fler said:
mueller_mich...@alice-dsl.net wrote:
Single has 7 significant digits.
mode style=nitpicking
Six significant digits. The seventh already is unreliable.
/mode
A mistake in the nth digit can show up much higher than the nth or n-1th
digit,
I've installed WebDesign package and would like to try its examples to see
what I can do with it. I'm facing a problem where I can't see any preview in
a TWebPage, it says: Failed to initialize Gecko/XULRunner. Make sure it is
installed. You can specify the filename of the XPCom library in
I also tried make cycle as outlined in programmers guide, but
results are the same.
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 10:03 AM, Brian Winfrey bwcod...@gmail.com wrote:
What version should fpc display (Revision: 16393).
When I get latest and make /usr/bin/fpc is at version 2.4.2.
fpc -vut dummy.pas
12 matches
Mail list logo
