As for myself, I attempted to compile FD-KEYB with FPC 16-bit, which I find
to be a good proof, as it has heavy parts in Assembler, other parts in
Pascal, and many procedure-type variables.

It helped me fix a couple of minor (almost cometic) failures in the code.
But I did not succeed. The problems came when mangling with
procedure/function-type variables especially with far/near procedures, etc.

I posted in the list, but I assume that DOS programming is not that
exciting these days. I tried to isolate the problem, but when requested to
post the whole program, I did not get any useful replies in the mailing
list, so I quitted.

Maybe to retry some day :)
(all the other corrections were pushed into the latest KEYB version).


On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 at 02:46, Ralf Quint <freedos...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 4/12/2023 5:08 PM, Jim Hall wrote:
> > A user emailed me (late last year) with a bug/issue report on
> > FreePascal in FreeDOS 1.3. I was going to (finally) reply to say they
> > really should ask the FreePascal people about this, but I realized I
> > couldn't really make out what they were saying. This is the part of
> > their email that relates to the FreePascal problem:
> >
> >> I believe this is a Free Pascal issue because the short
> >> hello world test works, but if you decide to use any
> >> objects, the Video unit is completely missing.  There is
> >> reference to consolidation of the video functions but no
> >> references to where the the functions in that unit went.
> >> Actually as good as Free Pascal are, they are getting
> >> pretty sloppy with keeping their work updates current in
> >> their wiki.  There are a lot of circular references that
> >> are dead ends when it comes to useful information for
> >> experienced users.
> >
> > Not sure what this is talking about, but I'm not a Pascal programmer.
> > And their email kept going off onto tangents, so it was hard to
> > follow. Does this "bug report" make sense to anyone?
> Well, (s)he is rather thin on any details, but it sounds as if the OP
> expects that FreePascal is a drop-in replacement for Turbo-Pascal. Which
> it isn't.
> The 16bit x86 (DOS) version is a bit of a step child at FreePascal, and
> I am not sure how usable the latest version of this actually is. This is
> on my to-do list, unfortunately currently further to the end of that, to
> check and verify how much work it is to get old Turbo Pascal stuff
> working with the 16bit version. And the 32bit version (using the GO32
> DOS Extender) has also been behind the general development of FP, with
> some of the OOP stuff probably not applicable at all anymore.
> Ralf
> Ralf
> _______________________________________________
> Freedos-devel mailing list
> Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Freedos-devel mailing list

Reply via email to