Am 21.01.2011 05:03, schrieb Michel Catudal:
> On 20/01/2011 05:14, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
>> Am 20.01.2011 04:01, schrieb Michel Catudal:
>>
>>> In the Makefile I see these after I do a fpcmake -Tall. I looked all
>>> over the project and cannot find where I would put the information
>>> so fp
On 20/01/2011 05:14, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
Am 20.01.2011 04:01, schrieb Michel Catudal:
In the Makefile I see these after I do a fpcmake -Tall. I looked all
over the project and cannot find where I would put the information
so fpcmake would generate a Makefile with : ifeq
($(FULL_TARGET),a
Am 20.01.2011 04:01, schrieb Michel Catudal:
> In the Makefile I see these after I do a fpcmake -Tall. I looked all
> over the project and cannot find where I would put the information
> so fpcmake would generate a Makefile with : ifeq
> ($(FULL_TARGET),avr32-embedded)
>
> Makefile:ifeq ($(FULL_TA
Am 20.01.2011 11:01, schrieb Bernd Mueller:
> Henry Vermaak wrote:
>> On 20/01/11 08:20, Michael Schnell wrote:
>>> On 01/19/2011 05:13 PM, Henry Vermaak wrote:
it's really expensive to trap the illegal instructions and emulate
them.
>>> AFAIK, the trapping is done by the ARM CPU, an
Henry Vermaak wrote:
On 20/01/11 08:20, Michael Schnell wrote:
On 01/19/2011 05:13 PM, Henry Vermaak wrote:
it's really expensive to trap the illegal instructions and emulate them.
AFAIK, the trapping is done by the ARM CPU, anyway, providing the
emulation functions just costs some memory, bu
On 01/20/2011 10:40 AM, Henry Vermaak wrote:
...
This is exactly what I wanted to say, as well. The trap itself is done
by the hardware, the handling of same (if the user land software in fact
does FPU instructions) is very slow and intrusive.
-Michael
_
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 5:18 PM, Henry Vermaak wrote:
> How did it crash? Your crashes may be due to the fact that fpc passes
> floats incorrectly in function calls, too.
I just rechecked, and for FPC-based apps, it simply refuses installing:
W/PackageManager( 89): Native ABI mismatch from pa
On 20/01/11 08:20, Michael Schnell wrote:
On 01/19/2011 05:13 PM, Henry Vermaak wrote:
it's really expensive to trap the illegal instructions and emulate them.
AFAIK, the trapping is done by the ARM CPU, anyway, providing the
emulation functions just costs some memory, but of course it's even
On 01/19/2011 05:13 PM, Henry Vermaak wrote:
it's really expensive to trap the illegal instructions and emulate them.
AFAIK, the trapping is done by the ARM CPU, anyway, providing the
emulation functions just costs some memory, but of course it's even
slower and more intrusive than directly ca
On 19/01/2011 11:57, Henry Vermaak wrote:
On 19/01/11 16:49, Jonas Maebe wrote:
On 19 Jan 2011, at 17:13, Henry Vermaak wrote:
There is another consideration, though: float abi. You can build a
toolchain that enables use of an fpu, but still passes floats in int
registers or on the stack (-
On 19/01/11 16:49, Jonas Maebe wrote:
On 19 Jan 2011, at 17:13, Henry Vermaak wrote:
There is another consideration, though: float abi. You can build a toolchain
that enables use of an fpu, but still passes floats in int registers or on the
stack (-mfloat-abi=softfp). This is how the andro
On 19 Jan 2011, at 17:13, Henry Vermaak wrote:
> There is another consideration, though: float abi. You can build a toolchain
> that enables use of an fpu, but still passes floats in int registers or on
> the stack (-mfloat-abi=softfp). This is how the android toolchain is
> configured. I d
On 19/01/11 16:13, Henry Vermaak wrote:
On 19/01/11 15:56, Michael Schnell wrote:
On 01/19/2011 12:03 PM, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote:
Some phones have hardware floating point, the majority not.
I'm not in a position to estimate the counts of Android devices that
have an FPU vs those tha
On 19/01/11 16:18, Henry Vermaak wrote:
On 19/01/11 16:02, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote:
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Michael Schnell
wrote:
But AFAIK, when building the Linux Kernel for AR; chips without FPU,
you can
include an FPU simulation. With that the user software (other than
s
On 19/01/11 16:02, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote:
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Michael Schnell wrote:
But AFAIK, when building the Linux Kernel for AR; chips without FPU, you can
include an FPU simulation. With that the user software (other than slower
execution) does not notice that th
On 19/01/11 15:56, Michael Schnell wrote:
On 01/19/2011 12:03 PM, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote:
Some phones have hardware floating point, the majority not.
I'm not in a position to estimate the counts of Android devices that
have an FPU vs those that don't, or suggest that all relevant of
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Michael Schnell wrote:
> But AFAIK, when building the Linux Kernel for AR; chips without FPU, you can
> include an FPU simulation. With that the user software (other than slower
> execution) does not notice that there is no FPU. As this only costs some
> hundred by
Am 19.01.2011 16:56, schrieb Michael Schnell:
> On 01/19/2011 12:03 PM, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote:
>> Some phones have hardware floating point, the majority not.
> I'm not in a position to estimate the counts of Android devices that
> have an FPU vs those that don't, or suggest that all rel
On 01/19/2011 12:03 PM, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote:
Some phones have hardware floating point, the majority not.
I'm not in a position to estimate the counts of Android devices that
have an FPU vs those that don't, or suggest that all relevant of them have.
But AFAIK, when building the L
On 19 Jan 2011, at 12:03, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote:
Some phones have hardware floating point, the majority not.
I suppose that FPC can't currently auto-detect, can it?
That's not a matter for the compiler or RTL to auto-detect. You need a
completely different binary if you want to
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 11:59 AM, Michael Schnell wrote:
> Really ?
>
> I feel that This does not make sense, as, AFAIK, the new ARMs do provide
> floating point in hardware.
Some phones have hardware floating point, the majority not.
I suppose that FPC can't currently auto-detect, can it? If no
On 01/18/2011 11:51 AM, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote:
Android expects soft-float.
Really ?
I feel that This does not make sense, as, AFAIK, the new ARMs do provide
floating point in hardware.
-Michael
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lis
On 18/01/11 12:58, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote:
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Henry Vermaak wrote:
Try using crosszipinstall.
I tryed:
make crosszipinstall CPU_TARGET=arm OS_TARGET=linux
CROSSBINDIR=/home/felipe/Programas/fpctrunk/binutils OPT=-dFPC_ARMEL
INSTALL_PREFIX=/usr/
and
Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote:
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Mark Morgan Lloyd
wrote:
Have you checked with the -vt option to see what the compiler is trying to
load?
Thanks, indeed, it seams that something changed in the code to search
for the binutils and I had to update my .fpc.cfg
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Henry Vermaak wrote:
> Try using crosszipinstall.
I tryed:
make crosszipinstall CPU_TARGET=arm OS_TARGET=linux
CROSSBINDIR=/home/felipe/Programas/fpctrunk/binutils OPT=-dFPC_ARMEL
INSTALL_PREFIX=/usr/
and
make crosszipinstall CPU_TARGET=arm OS_TARGET=linux
CRO
On 18 Jan 2011, at 13:44, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote:
Which is somewhat wrong, but it worked previously. Now that I updated
my fpc I had to disable the line
-XP/home/felipe/Programas/fpctrunk/binutils/
The correct parameter would be -FD/home/felipe/Programas/fpctrunk/
binutils/
Jon
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Mark Morgan Lloyd
wrote:
> Have you checked with the -vt option to see what the compiler is trying to
> load?
Thanks, indeed, it seams that something changed in the code to search
for the binutils and I had to update my .fpc.cfg, thanks. Previously I
had used:
#
On 01/18/11 06:06, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote:
> hummm,
>
> I installed the installer from Schatzl Thomas to test it and after
> that I reinstalled my build from svn trunk and it no longer finishes
> building:
>
> Hint: Start of reading config file /home/felipe/.fpc.cfg
> Hint: Start of re
Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote:
Compiling javalang.pas
Assembling javalang
javalang.pas(46) Error: Assembler
/home/felipe/Programas/fpctrunk/binutils/as not found, switching to
external assembling
javalang.pas(46) Fatal: There were 1 errors compiling module, stopping
The strange thing is tha
hummm,
I installed the installer from Schatzl Thomas to test it and after
that I reinstalled my build from svn trunk and it no longer finishes
building:
Hint: Start of reading config file /home/felipe/.fpc.cfg
Hint: Start of reading config file /etc/fpc.cfg
Hint: End of reading config file /etc/f
In our previous episode, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho said:
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 11:40 AM, Marco van de Voort wrote:
> > Nowhere. It was made for a bounty. It was EABI4 btw (for sheeva). ?iirc I
> > commented on the main sheeva thread in the lazarus forum about it.
>
> I don't know what sheev
On 18/01/11 10:03, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote:
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Schatzl Thomas wrote:
official snapshots for 2.4.3/2.5.1 ARMv5 eabi with softfloat are on the ftp.
ftp://ftp.freepascal.org/fpc/snapshot/v24/arm-linux/fpc-2.4.3.arm-linux.tar.gz
ftp://ftp.freepascal.org/fpc
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 11:40 AM, Marco van de Voort wrote:
> Nowhere. It was made for a bounty. It was EABI4 btw (for sheeva). iirc I
> commented on the main sheeva thread in the lazarus forum about it.
I don't know what sheeva is (except for the mortal kombat character =D
), but to me it looks
In our previous episode, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho said:
> Where have you hosted your cross-compiler windows --> arm-linux ?
Nowhere. It was made for a bounty. It was EABI4 btw (for sheeva). iirc I
commented on the main sheeva thread in the lazarus forum about it.
The binutils are on FTP thoug
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Schatzl Thomas wrote:
> official snapshots for 2.4.3/2.5.1 ARMv5 eabi with softfloat are on the ftp.
>
> ftp://ftp.freepascal.org/fpc/snapshot/v24/arm-linux/fpc-2.4.3.arm-linux.tar.gz
> ftp://ftp.freepascal.org/fpc/snapshot/v25/arm-linux/fpc-2.5.1.arm-linux.tar.gz
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Schatzl Thomas wrote:
> Anyway, I have a 2.4.2 arm-linux with that patch applied at
>
> http://members.yline.com/~tom_at_work/fpc-2.4.2.UNOFFICIAL.arm-linux.tar .
> Again ARMv5 eabi with softfloat.
Hello,
Is that arm-linux --> arm-linux ?
I thought that it was a
Hello Marco,
Where have you hosted your cross-compiler windows --> arm-linux ?
Plus, I would like to mention again that it would be very good to
convert the unofficial linux --> arm-linux cross-compiler into a
release.
I am writing articles about Android programming and without suitable
FPC rele
Henry Vermaak wrote:
On 6 December 2010 10:05, Mark Morgan Lloyd
wrote:
Henry Vermaak wrote:
Just interested, how would you do this? Does win ce have an ssh server?
Unless I'm badly missing the point: these boards have full video etc. so can
run programs in exactly the way that "real" comput
Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote:
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Mark Morgan Lloyd
wrote:
I'm currently rereading the Build FAQ- slowly and carefully. Is it still the
case that native CE is under-exercised? I've got a board here- basically an
ARM-based PC- that I could fire up and use for te
On 6 December 2010 10:05, Mark Morgan Lloyd
wrote:
> Henry Vermaak wrote:
>>
>> Just interested, how would you do this? Does win ce have an ssh server?
>
> Unless I'm badly missing the point: these boards have full video etc. so can
> run programs in exactly the way that "real" computers do.
Oh,
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Mark Morgan Lloyd
wrote:
> I'm currently rereading the Build FAQ- slowly and carefully. Is it still the
> case that native CE is under-exercised? I've got a board here- basically an
> ARM-based PC- that I could fire up and use for testing.
Any exercising for ARM a
Henry Vermaak wrote:
On 06/12/10 09:33, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote:
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Mark Morgan Lloyd
wrote:
I'm currently rereading the Build FAQ- slowly and carefully. Is it
still the
case that native CE is under-exercised?
What do you mean
On 06/12/10 09:33, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote:
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Mark Morgan Lloyd
wrote:
I'm currently rereading the Build FAQ- slowly and carefully. Is it
still the
case that native CE is under-exercised?
What do you mean by "native CE"?
Run
Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote:
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Mark Morgan Lloyd
wrote:
I'm currently rereading the Build FAQ- slowly and carefully. Is it still the
case that native CE is under-exercised?
What do you mean by "native CE"?
Running the compiler etc. on CE, rather than cro
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Mark Morgan Lloyd
wrote:
> I'm currently rereading the Build FAQ- slowly and carefully. Is it still the
> case that native CE is under-exercised?
What do you mean by "native CE"?
--
Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho
___
fpc-
Marco van de Voort wrote:
In our previous episode, Mark Morgan Lloyd said:
I had to go briefly onto 2.5.1 for ARM and found
that it refused to compile Lazarus- if I recall correctly there was a
conditional in the source where anything that wasn't 2.4 was assumed to be
2.2 or older.
You should t
Marco van de Voort wrote:
I will, but since I'm running natively on a system with very limited
memory running a complete build takes a week.
Lazbuild using 2.4.2 on armel generates working programs.
Yesterday I've made a crosscompiling 2.5.1 snapshot that is able to
crosscompile binaries wit
In our previous episode, marcov said:
> > Lazbuild using 2.4.2 on armel generates working programs.
aw, blew up the message, forgot to ask the real question:
To experiment with thumb, should I enable interworking in binutils?
___
fpc-devel maillist -
In our previous episode, Mark Morgan Lloyd said:
> >> I had to go briefly onto 2.5.1 for ARM and found
> >> that it refused to compile Lazarus- if I recall correctly there was a
> >> conditional in the source where anything that wasn't 2.4 was assumed to be
> >> 2.2 or older.
> >
> > You should tr
Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote:
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Mark Morgan Lloyd
wrote:
But if you're considering making it public wouldn't it be better to use the
"official" 2.4.2 release, at least until somebody really had to have a
recent fix or extension?
I think too that it should be
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Mark Morgan Lloyd
wrote:
> But if you're considering making it public wouldn't it be better to use the
> "official" 2.4.2 release, at least until somebody really had to have a
> recent fix or extension?
I think too that it should be made official. It will also be b
Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote:
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Florian Klaempfl
wrote:
There is no release for arm-linux.
Maybe I could create one, or maybe even a simple zip file with a
snapshot of FPC 2.5.1 for linux-arm
[...]
Even if only I use it, I think that a Linux-arm pre-com
Hi,
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Florian Klaempfl
> wrote:
> > There is no release for arm-linux.
>
> Maybe I could create one, or maybe even a simple zip file with a
> snapshot of FPC 2.5.1 for linux-arm
official snapshots for 2.4.3/2.5.1 ARMv5 eabi with softfloat are on the ftp.
ftp:
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Florian Klaempfl
wrote:
> There is no release for arm-linux.
Maybe I could create one, or maybe even a simple zip file with a
snapshot of FPC 2.5.1 for linux-arm
Is there a list of which files are created when running
make crossinstall CPU_TARGET=arm OS_TARGET=l
Am 30.11.2010 13:55, schrieb Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho:
> Hello,
>
> Looking at: http://www.freepascal.org/down/arm/linux-austria.var
>
> There is no download for 2.4.2
>
> Was the page not updated or is something needed to get this working?
There is no release for arm-linux.
55 matches
Mail list logo
