On Sun, 29 Aug 2010, Hans-Peter Diettrich wrote:
Michael Van Canneyt schrieb:
The build fails when the (relative) searchpaths are prefixed with "..\" in
a later stage of the make cycle, as already reported.
That sounds like a compiler problem, not a makefile problem. That is beyond
my cap
On Sun, 29 Aug 2010, Dimitri Smits wrote:
- "Michael Van Canneyt" schreef:
On Sun, 29 Aug 2010, Marco van de Voort wrote:
In our previous episode, Michael Van Canneyt said:
There is nothing in Delphi X (due in 3 days) that will not build on
these existing things.
We need those fi
On 29 August 2010 15:32, Dimitri Smits wrote:
>> You're free to choose one over the other; Personally, I favour
>> fpc-unit style.
>> I find it works most easily, definitely if you use Lazarus.
>
> so, lpi files and the like are acceptable in fpc?
I think he means that there is a GUI unit test ru
Michael Van Canneyt schrieb:
The build fails when the (relative) searchpaths are prefixed with
"..\" in a later stage of the make cycle, as already reported.
That sounds like a compiler problem, not a makefile problem. That is
beyond my capabilities.
I see no chance how the compiler can inf
- "Michael Van Canneyt" schreef:
> On Sun, 29 Aug 2010, Marco van de Voort wrote:
>
> > In our previous episode, Michael Van Canneyt said:
> >>
> >> There is nothing in Delphi X (due in 3 days) that will not build on
> these existing things.
> >> We need those first.
> >
> > Delphi Xe is no
Op Sun, 29 Aug 2010, schreef Paul Ishenin:
29.08.2010 21:39, Dimitri Smits wrote:
At the present state of fpc compiler it is technically imposible to
port
delphi rtti unit. To do this you need first to implement the next
compiler features:
1. Extended records (methods, class operators)
2. Ge
On Sun, 29 Aug 2010, Jonas Maebe wrote:
On 29 Aug 2010, at 16:54, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
His change would mean that the GCC compiler does things which we currently know
nothing about, namely it pushes const parameters by reference in some cases.
No, the problem is many people (wrongl
In our previous episode, Michael Van Canneyt said:
> His change would mean that the GCC compiler does things which we currently
> know nothing about, namely it pushes const parameters by reference in some
> cases. In casu: What is the C declaration for the QueryInterface call ?
>
> It is define
29.08.2010 21:39, Dimitri Smits wrote:
At the present state of fpc compiler it is technically imposible to
port
delphi rtti unit. To do this you need first to implement the next
compiler features:
1. Extended records (methods, class operators)
2. Generics as in delphi
3. Attributes
4. scopeabl
On 29.08.2010 16:41, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
In each case, a question to Joost is: Why does he need to change
IInterface calling convention ?
I see no code in the Gecko/XPCom units that would require this ? Because
if it doesn't need to be changed, the whole discussion is academic.
If I unde
On 29 Aug 2010, at 16:54, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
> His change would mean that the GCC compiler does things which we currently
> know nothing about, namely it pushes const parameters by reference in some
> cases.
No, the problem is many people (wrongly) use "const" in Pascal as an equivalen
On Sun, 29 Aug 2010, Marco van de Voort wrote:
In our previous episode, Michael Van Canneyt said:
There is nothing in Delphi X (due in 3 days) that will not build on these
existing things.
We need those first.
Delphi Xe is not the multiplatform version anyways.
From what I've heard, the
On Sun, 29 Aug 2010, Marco van de Voort wrote:
In our previous episode, Michael Van Canneyt said:
Because if it is something we decided, it simply means that we should change
it's meaning to be identical to mwpascal: cdecl calling convention, and const
structs passed by reference. If I'm righ
On Sun, 29 Aug 2010, Jonas Maebe wrote:
On 29 Aug 2010, at 16:10, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
What does stdcall calling convention currently do on non-windows platforms ?
The same as on Windows.
But we are under no obligation to have this so ?
Does a C compiler (gcc) under linux underst
In our previous episode, Michael Van Canneyt said:
> >> There is nothing in Delphi X (due in 3 days) that will not build on these
> >> existing things.
> >> We need those first.
> >
> > Delphi Xe is not the multiplatform version anyways.
> From what I've heard, the Mac version is unlikely to appe
On 29 Aug 2010, at 16:18, Jonas Maebe wrote:
> On 29 Aug 2010, at 16:10, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
>
>> What does stdcall calling convention currently do on non-windows platforms ?
>
> The same as on Windows.
I made a mistake here: there in fact some differences between stdcall on win32
and
In our previous episode, Michael Van Canneyt said:
> Because if it is something we decided, it simply means that we should change
> it's meaning to be identical to mwpascal: cdecl calling convention, and const
> structs passed by reference. If I'm right, 'stdcall' currently
> has no meaning on non-
On 29 Aug 2010, at 16:10, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
> What does stdcall calling convention currently do on non-windows platforms ?
The same as on Windows.
> I think that having to write
> {$ifdef windows}const{$else}constref{$endif} myarg: mytype
> for possibly thousands of arguments in an in
On Sun, 29 Aug 2010, Marco van de Voort wrote:
In our previous episode, Michael Van Canneyt said:
IMO compatibility with the Delphi Unicode version were a different project,
requiring some manpower. There exist some more questionable features,
resulting from the (attempted and dropped) .NET
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010, Joost van der Sluis wrote:
Hi all,
The safecall calling convention is now implemented for i386/linux in
fpc-trunk. The next step to get XPCom working now is to update the
QueryInterface (and AddRef and ReleaseRef) definitions in IInterface.
Problem is that they are defin
On Sun, 29 Aug 2010, Dimitri Smits wrote:
Michael, thank you for the reply. It makes a few things a lot clearer for me.
I'll comment a bit more below.
For this I'd like to know a few things:
- First off: would this kind of thing even be considered for
inclusion?
Yes. Any unit to increas
On Sun, 29 Aug 2010, Hans-Peter Diettrich wrote:
Michael Van Canneyt schrieb:
Since I work on win32 (only), I'm not that familiar with makefiles. So, if
I need to add anything to makefiles or copy+edit another makefile, please
redirect me to more information. (mainly for testing-app, I gues
In our previous episode, Michael Van Canneyt said:
> >
> > IMO compatibility with the Delphi Unicode version were a different project,
> > requiring some manpower. There exist some more questionable features,
> > resulting from the (attempted and dropped) .NET version, like dotted unit
> > names
In our previous episode, Hans-Peter Diettrich said:
> >> For this I'd like to know a few things:
> >> - First off: would this kind of thing even be considered for inclusion?
> >
> > Yes. Any unit to increase Delphi compatibility is worth of inclusion.
>
> IMO compatibility with the Delphi Unicode
On Sun, 29 Aug 2010, Hans-Peter Diettrich wrote:
Michael Van Canneyt schrieb:
For this I'd like to know a few things:
- First off: would this kind of thing even be considered for inclusion?
Yes. Any unit to increase Delphi compatibility is worth of inclusion.
IMO compatibility with the D
In our previous episode, Hans-Peter Diettrich said:
>
> > This sidestep thread over the EU directive misses the main point. Legal or
> > not, the question is do we really copy interfaces straight from Borland
> > source? Afaik not. At least I never did, I always looked up header
> > definitions
Michael Van Canneyt schrieb:
Since I work on win32 (only), I'm not that familiar with makefiles.
So, if
I need to add anything to makefiles or copy+edit another makefile, please
redirect me to more information. (mainly for testing-app, I guess)
Let me handle that. Focus on the code.
Can yo
Michael Van Canneyt schrieb:
For this I'd like to know a few things:
- First off: would this kind of thing even be considered for inclusion?
Yes. Any unit to increase Delphi compatibility is worth of inclusion.
IMO compatibility with the Delphi Unicode version were a different
project, requ
Marco van de Voort schrieb:
This sidestep thread over the EU directive misses the main point. Legal or
not, the question is do we really copy interfaces straight from Borland
source? Afaik not. At least I never did, I always looked up header
definitions from places as Delphi.about.com
How ca
Daniël Mantione schrieb:
If the order of elements is enforced, it is not a creative decision,
thus both programmers can make the same decision without violating each
others copyright.
How can one be sure that the arrangement is not required, somehow? ;-)
An interface is a contract, and as su
Hi Paul,
thanks for the input.
- "Paul Ishenin" schreef:
> 29.08.2010 3:46, Dimitri Smits wrote:
>> What I want to do:
>> Since Delphi 2010, there is a new unit in the RTL that makes RTTI
>> more of a breeze. I'd like to port (meaning: compatible interface, fpc
>> implementation) this unit t
Michael, thank you for the reply. It makes a few things a lot clearer for me.
I'll comment a bit more below.
- "Michael Van Canneyt" schreef:
> On Sat, 28 Aug 2010, Dimitri Smits wrote:
> > What I want to do:
> > Since Delphi 2010, there is a new unit in the RTL that makes RTTI
> more of
>
29.08.2010 3:46, Dimitri Smits wrote:
What I want to do:
Since Delphi 2010, there is a new unit in the RTL that makes RTTI more of a breeze. I'd
like to port (meaning: compatible interface, fpc implementation) this unit to fpc-rtl.
Initially port over what is there already. Later maybe include
- "Marco van de Voort" schreef:
> In our previous episode, Dani?l Mantione said:
> > > and C++ you can get hell when you change the order of elements,
> > > with interleaved #defines and #ifs (what's possible in Pascal as
> > > well).
> >
> > If the order of elements is enforced, it is no
In our previous episode, Jonas Maebe said:
> >
> > It is meant to avoid a heavy ifdefed solution which is IMHO even worse.
>
> That should not be required here. Afaik, only AddRef() and ReleaseRef()
> need it. All other routines are safecall, which can be used in FPC (after
> Joost's patch) and
On 28 Aug 2010, at 15:22, Marco van de Voort wrote:
> In our previous episode, Jonas Maebe said:
>>
>> I don't like the ability to change the meaning of keywords using switches
>> like that. It makes code harder to read, because you have to know which
>> switches are active before you know what
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010, Dimitri Smits wrote:
Hi,
I was wondering if anybody could direct me in the right direction (either mail,
wiki) with regard to following questions.
What I want to do:
Since Delphi 2010, there is a new unit in the RTL that makes RTTI more of
a breeze. I'd like to port (m
In our previous episode, Dani?l Mantione said:
> > and C++ you can get hell when you change the order of elements,
> > with interleaved #defines and #ifs (what's possible in Pascal as
> > well).
>
> If the order of elements is enforced, it is not a creative decision, thus
> both programmers can
2010/8/28 Žilvinas Ledas :
> Tried sample project today. Some a comment and a question:
> 1) I have a strange error when the same file is modified twice (and
> afterwards restored twice). One is:
A known problem. I had a partial fix, but not 100% yet.
fpp is modifying the same file twice. You pro
Op Sun, 29 Aug 2010, schreef Hans-Peter Diettrich:
Copyright is about creative decisions. For example the order in
which procedures, variables are declared are creative decisions
and thus part of the expression of an interface. If you make
the same creative decisions as the original program,
40 matches
Mail list logo
