Re: [Lazarus] Why development remains constant for msdos?

2013-09-24 Thread Kavalenka Anton 
BTW - i have a port of Turbovision -like library called GraphVision (with
sources) - window system built entirely on graph unit.
I think it is possible to create Lazarus widgetset wrapped around this DOS
GUI system.
I'll ask the author - if he agrees to give it out for community.

On 23 September 2013 17:47, Nikolay Nikolov  wrote:

> On 22.9.2013 г. 14:59 ч., Florian Klämpfl wrote:
>
>> Am 22.09.2013 13:46, schrieb Junior:
>>
>>> Why development remains constant for msdos?
>>>
>> Because somebody wants to do so. No more, no less.
>>
> As the person working on the i8086-msdos port, here's the story how it all
> started: I wanted to learn how FPC code generators work by porting it to a
> new architecture, but I didn't have any computer in my home with a CPU that
> isn't supported already (well, except for 6502 :) ). So porting to a new
> architecture would require buying some exotic hardware from eBay (say, an
> Itanium or SPARC64) that'll likely be already obsolete in a few years
> anyway. And one day it occurred to me that I could try an i8086 port. It
> seemed perfect to me for the following reasons:
>
> 1) while, you may consider 16-bit x86 dead, it never really died in the
> sense that every modern x86 processor (including 64-bit ones) supports it
> in real mode. In fact, unless you have an UEFI system, 16-bit code is
> always executed at some point during the boot process, because that's how
> the BIOS boots the system - it loads the first sector from the hard disk at
> address h:7C00h and jumps to it in 16-bit real mode. In fact, modern
> machines are able to boot DOS and it works without issues. If it didn't,
> boot loaders of modern operating systems wouldn't work either. So, in 5
> years, everybody will have a machine that is able to execute i8086 code
> (and thus, able to test and maintain the port), but that may not be the
> case for e.g. Itanium or SPARC64. Also, there are plenty of virtual
> machines available, where you can install DOS and test it. There's also
> DOSBox. In fact, you can run the FPC testsuite for i8086-msdos on any
> 32-bit or 64-bit linux _or_ windows via DOSBox.
> 2) I didn't need to learn an entirely new instruction set and OS API,
> since I'm already familiar with them, so I could focus only on the compiler
> itself.
> 3) There isn't a 16-bit x86 pascal compiler that is free/open source.
> Borland Pascal is proprietary and while you can download old versions for
> free from the Embarcadero museum site, the latest version available gratis
> is 5.5. You can't legally use 7.0, unless you bought it back then and even
> if you did, you don't have the sources to the compiler, so you can't fix
> bugs in it and improve it.
> 4) Since x86 compatibility goes all the way back to 16-bit, if FPC would
> support it could claim to be the first compiler which supports the full x86
> range going all the way from 16-bit up to 64-bit. It's something unique and
> cool :)
> OpenWatcom may be the only other compiler that is able to do it, since
> they haven't dropped 16-bit support and are supposedly working on 64-bit,
> but their 64-bit port is still not ready AFAIK. And of course GCC and LLVM
> are extremely unlikely to do such a crazy thing as a 16-bit port. :)
>
> It all started semi-seriously, I just wanted to see how difficult it would
> be to do the port, but I soon reached the point of no return, where I had
> almost got it working and I just had to keep working on it in order to get
> that next feature going, etc. And also, I'm having a lot of fun, while
> working on it. I also bought some vintage 16-bit machines from eBay for the
> extra fun and motivation :)
>
> As for people still using DOS, there's still a community of people using
> it for fun or for nostalgia reasons. Check out:
>
> http://www.bttr-software.de/**forum/forum.php
>
> There's also the FreeDOS project, which was already mentioned by another
> poster: http://www.freedos.org/
>
> Also note that DOS has always been supported by FPC via the go32v2 dos
> extender (ok, it might have been go32v1 when fpc was started), but it has
> always been 32-bit and thus requiring at least a 386. Only the 16-bit DOS
> support is new.
>
> Nikolay
>
>
> --
> __**_
> Lazarus mailing list
> Lazarus@lists.lazarus.**freepascal.org
> http://lists.lazarus.**freepascal.org/mailman/**listinfo/lazarus
>
--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

[Lazarus] Added PascalScriptFCL.lpk and PascalScriptLCL.lpk in official repository of PascalScript

2013-09-24 Thread silvioprog 
Hello,

Now PascalScript has two packages, one that uses only the FCL(1) and
another that uses the LCL(2).

Can you update it in Lazarus too? (lazarus\components\pascalscript)

If yes, PascalScript distributed with Lazarus could be used in console
aplication, without get the error "Error: Undefined symbol:
WSRegisterCustomImageList".

Thank you!

1 -
https://github.com/remobjects/pascalscript/blob/master/Source/PascalScriptFCL.lpk
2 -
https://github.com/remobjects/pascalscript/blob/master/Source/PascalScriptLCL.lpk

-- 
Silvio Clécio
My public projects - github.com/silvioprog
--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

[Lazarus] Memory leak in PascalScript

2013-09-24 Thread silvioprog 
Hello,

Can you help me to fix this issue?:

https://github.com/remobjects/pascalscript/issues/61

Thank you!

-- 
Silvio Clécio
My public projects - github.com/silvioprog
--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Ubuntu Server x Xfce x Lazarus

2013-09-24 Thread wkitty42 

On Tuesday, September 24, 2013 3:42 PM, Junior  wrote: 
> hello all 
>  
> To work, which is necessary? 
>  
> I am finding my current system too slow (Ubuntu 12.04.3 - Unity - 32bits 
> - 2 gb ram) 

with those given specs, you have much more than i have... what CPU are you 
using and what other services are you running?



--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Ubuntu Server x Xfce x Lazarus

2013-09-24 Thread Mattias Gaertner 
On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 16:42:29 -0300
Junior  wrote:

> hello all
> 
> To work, which is necessary?
> 
> I am finding my current system too slow (Ubuntu 12.04.3 - Unity - 32bits 
> - 2 gb ram)

Can you give an example for what is slow?

Mattias

--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

[Lazarus] Ubuntu Server x Xfce x Lazarus

2013-09-24 Thread Junior 

hello all

To work, which is necessary?

I am finding my current system too slow (Ubuntu 12.04.3 - Unity - 32bits 
- 2 gb ram)


thanks

--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] ide automaximizing on startup

2013-09-24 Thread Mattias Gaertner 
On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 10:10:23 -0600
Seth Grover  wrote:

> I'm playing with IDE docking for the first time and I have come across an
> annoyance I haven't found a solution for yet.

What OS?

 
> I followed these instructions:
> http://wiki.freepascal.org/Anchor_Docking#Docking_in_the_IDE
> 
> I installed the AnchorDockingDsgn package, set everything up the way I want
> it, and saved it to a file. I start the application with the
> --anchordocklayout= option (although it does the same thing if I just tell
> it to save my layout as the default).
> 
> The problem I have is that when the IDE starts up, it starts up maximized.
> This causes the layout to not be the same as I've saved it (things like the
> component bar are way too big). So what I have to do, each time, is
> unmaximize the program, then re-load my window layout from the file. This
> is a pain.
> 
> Is there a way I can have the application start up not maximized? I looked
> at the anchor docking layout file and don't see an option for it in the
> default XML, anyway.

Have you tried to close the IDE and delete the environmentoptions.xml?

Mattias

--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Why development remains constant for msdos?

2013-09-24 Thread Nikolay Nikolov 

On 09/24/2013 12:17 PM, Sven Barth wrote:

Am 24.09.2013 10:58, schrieb Nikolay Nikolov:

On 24.9.2013 г. 10:42, Michael Schnell wrote:


How does fpc for DOS handle TThread ?

Just curious...


When you try to create a thread, your program terminates and writes a 
message that threading is not supported. Things like threadvar work 
in the sense that they compile and work, but since you don't have 
threads, they behave just like regular vars. Underneath they still 
generate the extra bloat needed for threadvars (e.g. calls to 
FPC_THREADVAR_RELOCATE, which are probably stubs and do nothing in 
the rtl)
Maybe we should adjust the compiler that it treats threadvars really 
like normal vars if the target does not support threading...


Yes, that's a good idea and in fact I was planning to do it, since it'll 
save precious space in the i8086 small and tiny memory models (and 
perhaps the embedded targets also), but I still haven't done it, due to 
other things with higher priority.


Nikolay

--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

[Lazarus] ide automaximizing on startup

2013-09-24 Thread Seth Grover 
I'm playing with IDE docking for the first time and I have come across an
annoyance I haven't found a solution for yet.

I followed these instructions:
http://wiki.freepascal.org/Anchor_Docking#Docking_in_the_IDE

I installed the AnchorDockingDsgn package, set everything up the way I want
it, and saved it to a file. I start the application with the
--anchordocklayout= option (although it does the same thing if I just tell
it to save my layout as the default).

The problem I have is that when the IDE starts up, it starts up maximized.
This causes the layout to not be the same as I've saved it (things like the
component bar are way too big). So what I have to do, each time, is
unmaximize the program, then re-load my window layout from the file. This
is a pain.

Is there a way I can have the application start up not maximized? I looked
at the anchor docking layout file and don't see an option for it in the
default XML, anyway.

Thanks,

-SG


--
Seth Grover

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Why development remains constant for msdos?

2013-09-24 Thread Sven Barth 

Am 24.09.2013 10:58, schrieb Nikolay Nikolov:

On 24.9.2013 г. 10:42, Michael Schnell wrote:

On 09/22/2013 10:40 PM, wkitt...@windstream.net wrote:
yes, there are still quitet many DOS systems out there... there's 
even freeDOS and similar FOSS(?) DOS projects... some of them are 
even 32bit and can use all available memory like other OSes of today ;)



How does fpc for DOS handle TThread ?

Just curious...


When you try to create a thread, your program terminates and writes a 
message that threading is not supported. Things like threadvar work in 
the sense that they compile and work, but since you don't have 
threads, they behave just like regular vars. Underneath they still 
generate the extra bloat needed for threadvars (e.g. calls to 
FPC_THREADVAR_RELOCATE, which are probably stubs and do nothing in the 
rtl)
Maybe we should adjust the compiler that it treats threadvars really 
like normal vars if the target does not support threading...


Regards,
Sven

--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Why development remains constant for msdos?

2013-09-24 Thread Nikolay Nikolov 

On 24.9.2013 г. 10:42, Michael Schnell wrote:

On 09/22/2013 10:40 PM, wkitt...@windstream.net wrote:
yes, there are still quitet many DOS systems out there... there's 
even freeDOS and similar FOSS(?) DOS projects... some of them are 
even 32bit and can use all available memory like other OSes of today ;)



How does fpc for DOS handle TThread ?

Just curious...


When you try to create a thread, your program terminates and writes a 
message that threading is not supported. Things like threadvar work in 
the sense that they compile and work, but since you don't have threads, 
they behave just like regular vars. Underneath they still generate the 
extra bloat needed for threadvars (e.g. calls to FPC_THREADVAR_RELOCATE, 
which are probably stubs and do nothing in the rtl)


Nikolay

--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Why development remains constant for msdos?

2013-09-24 Thread Michael Schnell 

On 09/22/2013 10:40 PM, wkitt...@windstream.net wrote:
yes, there are still quitet many DOS systems out there... there's even 
freeDOS and similar FOSS(?) DOS projects... some of them are even 
32bit and can use all available memory like other OSes of today ;)



How does fpc for DOS handle TThread ?

Just curious...
-Michael

--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus