On 14 Feb 2011, at 15:47, Jeppe Johansen wrote:
Okay, I understand what you mean. But then something more than
"weak" functionality should be added. Aliasing isn't the same,
that's what the "default" part does
procedure EmptyFunc; [public, alias: 'EmptyFunc'];
begin // Empty function
Hello,
Is there a reason why no one apply the patch or look at the bug report ?
Ido
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 18:39, ik wrote:
> Hi List,
>
> I have reported the first Bug/Patch (actually feature as a patch) for 2011,
> but no one have looked at it so far:
> http://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?i
Den 14-02-2011 15:06, Jonas Maebe skrev:
On 14 Feb 2011, at 14:36, Jeppe Johansen wrote:
Sure, the weak declaration as a procedure directive could be added,
and it would indeed be something different from a weakexternal
procedure. Weakexternal should stay as it is, a procedure declaration
dire
Some addenda...
On 14 Feb 2011, at 15:06, Jonas Maebe wrote:
A "weakexternal" declaration by itself is not a reference (weak/
undefined or not), neither at the Pascal, C nor at the assembler/
object file level.
This is not correct for all platforms and for all declarations. It's
true for f
On 14 Feb 2011, at 14:36, Jeppe Johansen wrote:
Den 14-02-2011 14:00, Jonas Maebe skrev:
It's not the same.
"weak" (without external) would be a definition, which means that
it would be used in a situation like this:
procedure Test; weak;
begin
writeln('test');
end;
And the
Den 14-02-2011 14:00, Jonas Maebe skrev:
On 14 Feb 2011, at 13:45, Jeppe Johansen wrote:
I did a little change to the patch though. I changed the syntax to be
"weakexternal ['library'] [name 'name'] [default 'initialvalue'];"
since I figured default made more sense than set, in the given
con
On 14 Feb 2011, at 13:45, Jeppe Johansen wrote:
I did a little change to the patch though. I changed the syntax to
be "weakexternal ['library'] [name 'name'] [default
'initialvalue'];" since I figured default made more sense than set,
in the given context. I still think using weakexternal
After thinking about this proposal for some time, I've decided that I
like the original proposal better than the one that involved typechecked
qualified procedure identifiers
I think it might be a bad idea to apply high-level semantics to it,
because it's not crossplatform(COFF doesn't seem to
Am 13.02.2011 16:28, schrieb Armin Diehl:
> short question regarding the internal assembler:
>
> with as i can access .text, .data and .bss like:
>
> movl$.data,%eax
> movl$.text,%eax
> movl$.bss,%eax
>
> this does not seem to work with the internal assembler like:
> function __getBs
