[fpc-devel] Project Idea: Mini-FPC

2011-09-09 Thread Skybuck Flying
Hello, Here is an idea to help new-comers to FPC understand how it works: A new project could be created which would be called: Mini-FPC. The purpose of the project is to demonstrate how FPC compiles/builds itself and how it implements basic platform/cpu support. So the very minimum goal of

Re: [fpc-devel] Project Idea: Mini-FPC

2011-09-09 Thread Tomas Hajny
On Fri, September 9, 2011 03:48, Skybuck Flying wrote: Hello, Here is an idea to help new-comers to FPC understand how it works: A new project could be created which would be called: Mini-FPC. The purpose of the project is to demonstrate how FPC compiles/builds itself and how it

[fpc-devel] Building without the fp IDE

2011-09-09 Thread Mark Morgan Lloyd
Is there a correct way of telling the build process to skip the fp IDE? I'm trying to build trunk for SPARC so I can test the two recent FPC fixes plus another in Lazarus and am getting an error when building fp which I'd rather not stop to look at right now (although I'll try to report it

Re: [fpc-devel] Building without the fp IDE

2011-09-09 Thread Graeme Geldenhuys
On 09/09/2011 14:34, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote: Is there a correct way of telling the build process to skip the fp IDE? Delete the 'ide' folder? :) A 'svn revert' can always restore it later. Regards, - Graeme - -- fpGUI Toolkit - a cross-platform GUI toolkit using Free Pascal

Re: [fpc-devel] Building without the fp IDE

2011-09-09 Thread Henry Vermaak
On 09/09/11 13:34, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote: Is there a correct way of telling the build process to skip the fp IDE? I'm trying to build trunk for SPARC so I can test the two recent FPC fixes plus another in Lazarus and am getting an error when building fp which I'd rather not stop to look at

Re: [fpc-devel] Building without the fp IDE

2011-09-09 Thread Mark Morgan Lloyd
Graeme Geldenhuys wrote: On 09/09/2011 14:34, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote: Is there a correct way of telling the build process to skip the fp IDE? Delete the 'ide' folder? :) But won't the top-level makefile rules object to that? -- Mark Morgan Lloyd markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk

Re: [fpc-devel] Building without the fp IDE

2011-09-09 Thread Vincent Snijders
2011/9/9 Mark Morgan Lloyd markmll.fpc-de...@telemetry.co.uk: Graeme Geldenhuys wrote: On 09/09/2011 14:34, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote: Is there a correct way of telling the build process to skip the fp IDE? Delete the 'ide' folder?  :) But won't the top-level makefile rules object to that?

Re: [fpc-devel] Building without the fp IDE

2011-09-09 Thread Mark Morgan Lloyd
Vincent Snijders wrote: 2011/9/9 Mark Morgan Lloyd markmll.fpc-de...@telemetry.co.uk: Graeme Geldenhuys wrote: On 09/09/2011 14:34, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote: Is there a correct way of telling the build process to skip the fp IDE? Delete the 'ide' folder? :) But won't the top-level makefile

Re: [fpc-devel] the new resourcestring in const translation

2011-09-09 Thread Sergei Gorelkin
09.09.2011 18:36, Martin пишет: fpc recently added the ability to translate const Foo: String = resourcestring; if resourcestring changes so does Foo Any way to work around this? Probably only by duplicating the literal value which is used to initialize. because in

Re: [fpc-devel] Project Idea: Mini-FPC

2011-09-09 Thread John Clymer
Have you looked at target embedded ? For what specific platform are you contemplating this for ? (i.e. what specific need is driving this question ?) It implements a very minimal set of things, basically the minimum necessary to support the language core, and the minimum necessary to support

Re: [fpc-devel] the new resourcestring in const translation

2011-09-09 Thread cobines
2011/9/9 Sergei Gorelkin sergei_gorel...@mail.ru: Personally I don't think this is a valuable feature, but the matter of fact is all Delphi features are implemented in FPC sooner or later - so why not to do it sooner... There was recently a fix to Lazarus where some buttons captions were

[fpc-devel] FPDoc and inherited methods

2011-09-09 Thread Hans-Peter Diettrich
It looks like FPDoc links to an inherited item (method), when only a short description is provided for an overridden method. Is this intended behaviour? (see Controls.TDragControlObject) The short description is shown e.g. in the class declaration, but the link from there goes to the