[fpc-devel] Re: Bug in revision 9781/2
Hallo, it's me again. Bug is fixed with revision 9785 Hi there, when cycling fpc on macosx/darwin-386 (10.5) I get this error: i386.inc(1198,1) Error: Unknown label identifier .LPIC with revision 9781/2. I tried 2.3.1 and 2.2.1 "call .LPic" is actually one line before the declaration of ".LPic". My knowledge of asm is near zero. So, no idea whether this is allowed or not. All the best - Michael Schindler ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
[fpc-devel] Bug in revision 9781/2
Hi there, when cycling fpc on macosx/darwin-386 (10.5) I get this error: i386.inc(1198,1) Error: Unknown label identifier .LPIC with revision 9781/2. I tried 2.3.1 and 2.2.1 "call .LPic" is actually one line before the declaration of ".LPic". My knowledge of asm is near zero. So, no idea whether this is allowed or not. All the best - Michael Schindler ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] New -Xg option in the last 9778 revision
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008, Flávio Etrusco wrote: > > > > That is partly true. The problem is that setting -Xs doesn't help if > > > > there is also -g in the > > > > command line. So people think that the compiler strips the executable, > > > > but in fact the binary is > > > > unstripped. > > > > > > > > > > But why doesn't FPC spit a warning when these (seemingly conflicting) > > > options are used? > > > > It silently switches off -Xs when debug info is selected. > > > > Michael. > > Don't you think it should display a warning? I can imagine some people do :-) Michael.___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] New -Xg option in the last 9778 revision
> > > That is partly true. The problem is that setting -Xs doesn't help if > > > there is also -g in the > > > command line. So people think that the compiler strips the executable, > > > but in fact the binary is > > > unstripped. > > > > > > > But why doesn't FPC spit a warning when these (seemingly conflicting) > > options are used? > > It silently switches off -Xs when debug info is selected. > > Michael. Don't you think it should display a warning? -Flávio ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] New -Xg option in the last 9778 revision
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008, Flávio Etrusco wrote: > On Jan 18, 2008 7:47 AM, Peter Vreman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> I suggested using Lazarus and the OP said he had great doubts because the > > >> size of the exe of his test program is 10 times the size of that > > >> compiled by > > >> Borland. > > > > > > Anyone who writes such texts doesn't look further than his nose. > > > Experience shows they will just hit the next thing which makes Lazarus > > > "unusable". Don't expect such idiots to become Lazarus users. > > > > That is partly true. The problem is that setting -Xs doesn't help if there > > is also -g in the > > command line. So people think that the compiler strips the executable, but > > in fact the binary is > > unstripped. > > > > The easiest way to solve this is with a check in Lazarus. When the strip > > checkbox is checked a > > note shall be shown and asked to disable the debuginfo to make the option > > work. > > > > The real solution is what a lot of people already asked for. Multiple build > > modes like Visual C++ > > also has. > > > > Peter > > > > But why doesn't FPC spit a warning when these (seemingly conflicting) > options are used? It silently switches off -Xs when debug info is selected. Michael.___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] New -Xg option in the last 9778 revision
On Jan 18, 2008 7:47 AM, Peter Vreman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I suggested using Lazarus and the OP said he had great doubts because the > >> size of the exe of his test program is 10 times the size of that compiled > >> by > >> Borland. > > > > Anyone who writes such texts doesn't look further than his nose. > > Experience shows they will just hit the next thing which makes Lazarus > > "unusable". Don't expect such idiots to become Lazarus users. > > That is partly true. The problem is that setting -Xs doesn't help if there is > also -g in the > command line. So people think that the compiler strips the executable, but in > fact the binary is > unstripped. > > The easiest way to solve this is with a check in Lazarus. When the strip > checkbox is checked a > note shall be shown and asked to disable the debuginfo to make the option > work. > > The real solution is what a lot of people already asked for. Multiple build > modes like Visual C++ > also has. > > Peter > But why doesn't FPC spit a warning when these (seemingly conflicting) options are used? -Flávio ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] New -Xg option in the last 9778 revision
Op Fri, 18 Jan 2008, schreef Marc Weustink: The FPC IDE has had it for years. All user interface support you need is the Options->Mode menu. For the rest the handling all internal; the IDE uses an array of options, one for each build mode, each with its own defaults. Yeah... and we want something less static and more configurable, default options, release/debug/whatever build, target dependent etc.etc.etc. It would be nice that you can set certain compiler options only on certain targets, but, that is not what people are asking for. Don't make it more complicated than it is. All users want is an easy to access "debug build/release build" switch. The FPC IDE's fixed number 3 profiles already provide more than that. You can code it in an afternoon, which could be well spent, even if you want to code a more complex system later on. Daniël___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] New -Xg option in the last 9778 revision
Daniël Mantione wrote: Op Fri, 18 Jan 2008, schreef Marc Weustink: Michael Van Canneyt wrote: On Fri, 18 Jan 2008, Peter Vreman wrote: I suggested using Lazarus and the OP said he had great doubts because the size of the exe of his test program is 10 times the size of that compiled by Borland. Anyone who writes such texts doesn't look further than his nose. Experience shows they will just hit the next thing which makes Lazarus "unusable". Don't expect such idiots to become Lazarus users. That is partly true. The problem is that setting -Xs doesn't help if there is also -g in the command line. So people think that the compiler strips the executable, but in fact the binary is unstripped. The easiest way to solve this is with a check in Lazarus. When the strip checkbox is checked a note shall be shown and asked to disable the debuginfo to make the option work. The real solution is what a lot of people already asked for. Multiple build modes like Visual C++ also has. I think this is indeed the best, and should be not so hard to implement; At least the check would be already a hint to users. :) We thought about this some years ago. It is not as trivial as it seems. Initial problem was to present all possible options to the user. The tree based optiondialogs might help with this. The FPC IDE has had it for years. All user interface support you need is the Options->Mode menu. For the rest the handling all internal; the IDE uses an array of options, one for each build mode, each with its own defaults. Yeah... and we want something less static and more configurable, default options, release/debug/whatever build, target dependent etc.etc.etc. Marc ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] New -Xg option in the last 9778 revision
Op Fri, 18 Jan 2008, schreef Marc Weustink: Michael Van Canneyt wrote: On Fri, 18 Jan 2008, Peter Vreman wrote: I suggested using Lazarus and the OP said he had great doubts because the size of the exe of his test program is 10 times the size of that compiled by Borland. Anyone who writes such texts doesn't look further than his nose. Experience shows they will just hit the next thing which makes Lazarus "unusable". Don't expect such idiots to become Lazarus users. That is partly true. The problem is that setting -Xs doesn't help if there is also -g in the command line. So people think that the compiler strips the executable, but in fact the binary is unstripped. The easiest way to solve this is with a check in Lazarus. When the strip checkbox is checked a note shall be shown and asked to disable the debuginfo to make the option work. The real solution is what a lot of people already asked for. Multiple build modes like Visual C++ also has. I think this is indeed the best, and should be not so hard to implement; At least the check would be already a hint to users. :) We thought about this some years ago. It is not as trivial as it seems. Initial problem was to present all possible options to the user. The tree based optiondialogs might help with this. The FPC IDE has had it for years. All user interface support you need is the Options->Mode menu. For the rest the handling all internal; the IDE uses an array of options, one for each build mode, each with its own defaults. Daniël___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] New -Xg option in the last 9778 revision
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008, Marc Weustink wrote: > Michael Van Canneyt wrote: > > > > On Fri, 18 Jan 2008, Peter Vreman wrote: > > > > > > > I suggested using Lazarus and the OP said he had great doubts because > > > > > the > > > > > size of the exe of his test program is 10 times the size of that > > > > > compiled by > > > > > Borland. > > > > Anyone who writes such texts doesn't look further than his nose. > > > > Experience shows they will just hit the next thing which makes Lazarus > > > > "unusable". Don't expect such idiots to become Lazarus users. > > > That is partly true. The problem is that setting -Xs doesn't help if there > > > is also -g in the > > > command line. So people think that the compiler strips the executable, but > > > in fact the binary is > > > unstripped. > > > > > > The easiest way to solve this is with a check in Lazarus. When the strip > > > checkbox is checked a > > > note shall be shown and asked to disable the debuginfo to make the option > > > work. > > > > > > The real solution is what a lot of people already asked for. Multiple > > > build modes like Visual C++ > > > also has. > > > > I think this is indeed the best, and should be not so hard to implement; At > > least the check would be already a hint to users. > > :) > > We thought about this some years ago. It is not as trivial as it seems. > Initial problem was to present all possible options to the user. > The tree based optiondialogs might help with this. I may be naive, of course, but: I think that the build mode should only (un)set a couple of options, and should leave the rest of the options intact. What is so difficult about this ? Michael. ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] New -Xg option in the last 9778 revision
Michael Van Canneyt wrote: On Fri, 18 Jan 2008, Peter Vreman wrote: I suggested using Lazarus and the OP said he had great doubts because the size of the exe of his test program is 10 times the size of that compiled by Borland. Anyone who writes such texts doesn't look further than his nose. Experience shows they will just hit the next thing which makes Lazarus "unusable". Don't expect such idiots to become Lazarus users. That is partly true. The problem is that setting -Xs doesn't help if there is also -g in the command line. So people think that the compiler strips the executable, but in fact the binary is unstripped. The easiest way to solve this is with a check in Lazarus. When the strip checkbox is checked a note shall be shown and asked to disable the debuginfo to make the option work. The real solution is what a lot of people already asked for. Multiple build modes like Visual C++ also has. I think this is indeed the best, and should be not so hard to implement; At least the check would be already a hint to users. :) We thought about this some years ago. It is not as trivial as it seems. Initial problem was to present all possible options to the user. The tree based optiondialogs might help with this. Marc ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] New -Xg option in the last 9778 revision
So, he couldn't read the FAQ: Of course not. Nearly nobody reads an FAQ before deciding if a program is usable for him or not. They are only read when working with the program and encountering problems. -Michael ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] New -Xg option in the last 9778 revision
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008, Peter Vreman wrote: > >> I suggested using Lazarus and the OP said he had great doubts because the > >> size of the exe of his test program is 10 times the size of that compiled > >> by > >> Borland. > > > > Anyone who writes such texts doesn't look further than his nose. > > Experience shows they will just hit the next thing which makes Lazarus > > "unusable". Don't expect such idiots to become Lazarus users. > > That is partly true. The problem is that setting -Xs doesn't help if there is > also -g in the > command line. So people think that the compiler strips the executable, but in > fact the binary is > unstripped. > > The easiest way to solve this is with a check in Lazarus. When the strip > checkbox is checked a > note shall be shown and asked to disable the debuginfo to make the option > work. > > The real solution is what a lot of people already asked for. Multiple build > modes like Visual C++ > also has. I think this is indeed the best, and should be not so hard to implement; At least the check would be already a hint to users. Michael. ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] New -Xg option in the last 9778 revision
>> I suggested using Lazarus and the OP said he had great doubts because the >> size of the exe of his test program is 10 times the size of that compiled by >> Borland. > > Anyone who writes such texts doesn't look further than his nose. > Experience shows they will just hit the next thing which makes Lazarus > "unusable". Don't expect such idiots to become Lazarus users. That is partly true. The problem is that setting -Xs doesn't help if there is also -g in the command line. So people think that the compiler strips the executable, but in fact the binary is unstripped. The easiest way to solve this is with a check in Lazarus. When the strip checkbox is checked a note shall be shown and asked to disable the debuginfo to make the option work. The real solution is what a lot of people already asked for. Multiple build modes like Visual C++ also has. Peter ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] New -Xg option in the last 9778 revision
Op Fri, 18 Jan 2008, schreef Michael Schnell: I suggested using Lazarus and the OP said he had great doubts because the size of the exe of his test program is 10 times the size of that compiled by Borland. Anyone who writes such texts doesn't look further than his nose. Experience shows they will just hit the next thing which makes Lazarus "unusable". Don't expect such idiots to become Lazarus users. Daniël___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] New -Xg option in the last 9778 revision
Hi, 2008/1/18, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Jan 18, 2008 9:39 AM, Michael Schnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I suggested using Lazarus and the OP said he had great doubts because > > the size of the exe of his test program is 10 times the size of that > > compiled by Borland. > > So, he couldn't read the FAQ: > > http://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/Lazarus_Faq#Why_are_the_generated_binaries_so_big.3F Or we can apply this patch to the 2.2.2 branch! ;) -- Best regards... Fabio Dell'Aria. ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] New -Xg option in the last 9778 revision
On Jan 18, 2008 9:39 AM, Michael Schnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I suggested using Lazarus and the OP said he had great doubts because > the size of the exe of his test program is 10 times the size of that > compiled by Borland. So, he couldn't read the FAQ: http://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/Lazarus_Faq#Why_are_the_generated_binaries_so_big.3F -- Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] New -Xg option in the last 9778 revision
Hi, 2008/1/18, Michael Schnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I suggested using Lazarus and the OP said he had great doubts because > the size of the exe of his test program is 10 times the size of that > compiled by Borland. > > -Michael I have found the original thread. See it here: http://groups.google.com/group/borland.public.kylix.ide/browse_thread/thread/e6beff158e36b0b8 -- Best regards... Fabio Dell'Aria. ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] New -Xg option in the last 9778 revision
I suggested using Lazarus and the OP said he had great doubts because the size of the exe of his test program is 10 times the size of that compiled by Borland. -Michael ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] New -Xg option in the last 9778 revision
Hi, 2008/1/18, Michael Schnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > I think is really most important can use it ASAP. > > > > > Right ! See the latest posts in the Borland Kylix Newsgroup (that indeed > still exists :) ). What do you mean? :| -- Best regards... Fabio Dell'Aria. ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
