[fpc-devel] 64 Bit / 32 Bit
Hi experts ? I suppose that FPC can create 64 bit (IA-32/64) code. Is that correct ? Linux and/or Windows ? Can this be done by cross-compiling on a 32 Bit PC ? Linux and/or Windows ? Does a 64 Bit FPC generated program need to run on a 64 Bit OS ? (Linux and/or Windows ?) or can it just use 64 Bit instructions internally ? Does / can a 64 Bit FPC generated program include 32 Bit code as well so that it can run on a 32 Bit CPU ? If any No would that be desirable ? -Michael ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] 64 Bit / 32 Bit
Michael Schnell schrieb: Hi experts ? I suppose that FPC can create 64 bit (IA-32/64) code. IA-32: yes, it's plain i386+ code IA-64: no, IA-64 is the architecture used by the Itanium Or do you mean x86-64/AMD64/EMT64? Is that correct ? Linux and/or Windows ? Can this be done by cross-compiling on a 32 Bit PC ? Linux and/or Windows ? Does a 64 Bit FPC generated program need to run on a 64 Bit OS ? (Linux and/or Windows ?) or can it just use 64 Bit instructions internally ? Does / can a 64 Bit FPC generated program include 32 Bit code as well so that it can run on a 32 Bit CPU ? If any No would that be desirable ? -Michael ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] 64 Bit / 32 Bit
FPC can create IA32 and AMD64 code, not IA64 code. That is what I meant by IA 32/64. I did not suppose it can create Inatium code :-) . A 64-bit OS is necessary. I suppose this is because the API calls generated are 64 bit. Correct ? Does / can a 64 Bit FPC generated program include 32 Bit code as well so that it can run on a 32 Bit CPU ? No. So you would need to compile/deploy both versions if you want the customer to optionally take advantage of 64 bit. No problem IMHO. I suppose the 64 Bit OS takes care that any 32 bit program can run, anyway. Correct ? No, because if the program can run on 32-bit, the only adavtage to go for 64-bit is speed. But, FPC generates currently slower 64-bit executables than 32-bit executables. Oops ?!?! I supposed that using the much greater count of registers in 64 bit mode could speed up any kind of software. I suppose that the experts _are _working on that, though. Thanks for your answers ! -Michael ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] 64 Bit / 32 Bit
x86-64/AMD64/EMT64? Right ! Sorry for the silly notation. -Michael ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] 64 Bit / 32 Bit
On 02/10/2007, Florian Klaempfl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: IA-64: no, IA-64 is the architecture used by the Itanium Or do you mean x86-64/AMD64/EMT64? Sorry if this sounds stupid, but I've never dabbed into the 64bit world. What are all those XXX64 platforms / architectures? Architectures from different chip makers? From the list I would guess: Intel, AMD and then ??? Regards, - Graeme - ___ fpGUI - a cross-platform Free Pascal GUI toolkit http://opensoft.homeip.net/fpgui/ ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] 64 Bit / 32 Bit
Michael Schnell schrieb: Oops ?!?! I supposed that using the much greater count of registers in 64 bit mode could speed up any kind of software. No. 64 Bit causes also more memory traffic because everything being an address has the double size. So it depends on the application if 64 bit is faster or not. And since the 64 bit port of fpc isn't that good yet as 32 bit one, the advantage of the higher amount of registers is lost even more easily. ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] 64 Bit / 32 Bit
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ] On 02/10/2007, Florian Klaempfl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: IA-64: no, IA-64 is the architecture used by the Itanium Or do you mean x86-64/AMD64/EMT64? Sorry if this sounds stupid, but I've never dabbed into the 64bit world. What are all those XXX64 platforms / architectures? Architectures from different chip makers? AMD64 : original (AMD)name of x86_64 EMT64 : Intel name of x86_64 x86_64: neutral (and GNU) name of x86_64. IA-64 is of course Itanium and a really different architecture. ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] 64 Bit / 32 Bit
On 02/10/2007, Marco van de Voort [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: AMD64 : original (AMD)name of x86_64 EMT64 : Intel name of x86_64 x86_64: neutral (and GNU) name of x86_64. IA-64 is of course Itanium and a really different architecture. Ah, thanks Marco! Regards, - Graeme - ___ fpGUI - a cross-platform Free Pascal GUI toolkit http://opensoft.homeip.net/fpgui/ ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] 64 Bit / 32 Bit
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Oops ?!?! I supposed that using the much greater count of registers in 64 bit mode could speed up any kind of software. I suppose that the experts _are _working on that, though. Registers are only so useful. I have a very nice example program which is roughly 2x slower on 64bit version (on same machine) than 32bit version. It was a school project which did some tree search/generation (AI stuff) and had to use quite a lot of memory. The explanation of this slowdown given to me was simple. In 64bits, the cache is same as in 32bits (same machine remember?), but the amount of memory not (pointers, alignment I guess? etc.) I don't know the internals to know which things cause bigger cache hugging on 64bits, I'd guess at least pointers do, but perhaps everything is native padded for speed? Thanks for your answers ! -Michael Ales -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHAgP6FoLZReEjiMgRAk3WAJwKa/nXvkxMfAxwf9Ujxs9hOaDQ0ACfT/H+ 91QIdh4G5AM0e1HylKU9/cc= =JZtp -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
[fpc-devel] Beta Dos testers for 2.2.0a wanted
As you might know, there is no Dos distribution of 2.2.0 release yet. There are several reasons for this, but I am started a small branch that tries to get the minimal changes to get a usable Dos release. This branch is on the svn repository under fixes_2_2_0_dos. Using the 2.2.0 release sources to create a Dos distribution results in a program that does not work at all under raw Dos, mainly because of the fact that you need to look for '*.*' to get all files under Dos and '*' only lists files without extensions. The other more subtle problem seems to be related to problems in the IDE while debugging when compiling with optimizations set to -O2. Another problem was that the install.dat file, used by the installer, was out of sync with the current sources at release date. As this file is only used for go32v2 and os2 and nobody really tried to generate them, it got unnoticed. I uploaded to ftp.freepascal.org under ftp://ftp.freepascal.org/pub/fpc/beta/2.2.0a/go32v2 separate zip files, with install.exe and install.dat files. The directory shortsep is for people adventurous enough to try to test the installation of the beta dist onto a system without LFN support. The separate directory is for people who would like to test the beta dist on Windows 95/98/Me/2000/XP/Vista or on any Dos distribution having LFN or with a TSR that adds LFN support on your favorite Dos system. I would like to get feedback on the stability of the IDE (especially while debugging executables). If people are willing to help, it would be great to have persons that would try to do a complete rebuilding of the beta dist of their Dos system. Beware that you will need quite a lot of free disk space for that... I am not really sure that using the sources included in the same directory will work for that purpose, but attempts and failures should be reported on that list. The first step would be to install the sources, and try to recompile everything by doing a 'make all OPT=-gl -O- -dDEBUG UPXPROG=echo' at source level. You should basically regenerate the same executable (alltough the will not match completely as the date is written somewhere inside the debugging information, together with absolute pathes to the sources...) If someone is really willing to try to inspect deeper, doing a second build, removing the -O- option and check if the IDE generated that way behave as smoothly as when I tested the IDE compiled with -O-. By the way, the IDE being compiled with -dDEBUG, should have the ability to switch back and forth between graphic and text mode and thus support debugging for graphic Dos application, provided that you are only using modes defined in the Graph unit. For all answers, please state in the subject that you are usng the beta 2.2.0a for Dos, I am not reading all threads of this mailing list. Pierre Muller ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] resource compilation fails, if cpp is not on the path
From: Vincent Snijders [EMAIL PROTECTED] Vincent Snijders schreef: Thanks for the review. I committed the patch in r8670. Can this be merged to the fixes branch for fpc 2.2.1? Fine for me. Yury. ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] Beta Dos testers for 2.2.0a wanted
Pierre Muller wrote: There are several reasons for this, but I am started a small branch that tries to get the minimal changes to get a usable Dos release. Sounds great! My pre-releases (w/o no-LFN fix) are at http://www.bttr-software.de/misc/fpc/. The other more subtle problem seems to be related to problems in the IDE while debugging when compiling with optimizations set to -O2. Please explain these problems! Another problem was that the install.dat file, used by the installer, was out of sync with the current sources at release date. As this file is only used for I didn't noticed that before albeit I used the installer several times. What was wrong? I uploaded to ftp.freepascal.org under ftp://ftp.freepascal.org/pub/fpc/beta/2.2.0a/go32v2 separate zip files, with install.exe and install.dat files. I get Permission denied. :-( I would like to get feedback on the stability of the IDE (especially while debugging executables). IIRC I got internal error 291 (or 219) every time, when I set a breakpoint in a unit and started the main program. If people are willing to help, it would be great to have persons that would try to do a complete rebuilding of the beta dist of their Dos system. Beware that you will need quite a lot of free disk space for that... I could to that. Robert Riebisch -- BTTR Software http://www.bttr-software.de/ ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
RE: [fpc-devel] Beta Dos testers for 2.2.0a wanted
-Original Message- From: Robert Riebisch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 12:41 PM To: fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [fpc-devel] Beta Dos testers for 2.2.0a wanted Pierre Muller wrote: There are several reasons for this, but I am started a small branch that tries to get the minimal changes to get a usable Dos release. Sounds great! My pre-releases (w/o no-LFN fix) are at http://www.bttr-software.de/misc/fpc/. The other more subtle problem seems to be related to problems in the IDE while debugging when compiling with optimizations set to -O2. Please explain these problems! It seems that the IDE compiled without special OPT setting is not stable when you debug a program, but I did not have time to investigate this. Another problem was that the install.dat file, used by the installer, was out of sync with the current sources at release date. As this file is only used for I didn't noticed that before albeit I used the installer several times. What was wrong? It is only for some zip files that have a different name in the install.dat files than the name of the file created by 'make go32v2zip' for instance. It does not affect the required files. I uploaded to ftp.freepascal.org under ftp://ftp.freepascal.org/pub/fpc/beta/2.2.0a/go32v2 separate zip files, with install.exe and install.dat files. I get Permission denied. :-( I tried to upload them to test myself and realized that the change that I made in the fpcmake was incorrect and led to wrong zip files (containing the wrong files or with the wrong directory structure). This is explained in the README at beta/2.2.0a/go32v2 level. As soon as I get a correct upload, I will reopen these directories. I would like to get feedback on the stability of the IDE (especially while debugging executables). IIRC I got internal error 291 (or 219) every time, when I set a breakpoint in a unit and started the main program. Using the IDE with debug info included, you should be able to get a backtrace in such cases. If people are willing to help, it would be great to have persons that would try to do a complete rebuilding of the beta dist of their Dos system. Beware that you will need quite a lot of free disk space for that... I could to that. Thanks, Robert! I will send an email when the files are ready. Pierre ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] resource compilation fails, if cpp is not on the path
Yury Sidorov schreef: From: Vincent Snijders [EMAIL PROTECTED] Vincent Snijders schreef: Thanks for the review. I committed the patch in r8670. Can this be merged to the fixes branch for fpc 2.2.1? Fine for me. Done in r8721. Vincent ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] Location of objective-c runtime headers
On 7/23/07, Jonas Maebe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Peter N Lewis on the mac-pascal list is the administrator of that repository. I sent him an e-mail 1 month ago without answer. So, I can't put the bindings on fpc because they need to be put on the interfaces subversion first. But I can't put it on the interfaces subversion because I have no write access. It seams like a deadlock =) seriously ... can I just e-mail them to you so you can add them to the correct places? thanks, -- Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] Location of objective-c runtime headers
Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote: On 7/23/07, Jonas Maebe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Peter N Lewis on the mac-pascal list is the administrator of that repository. I sent him an e-mail 1 month ago without answer. I did receive an answer from Peter. I will forward it by private email. Regards, Adriaan van Os ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] 64 Bit / 32 Bit
Hi, in the 32 bits systems, the 'double' type is 64 bits long and the 'extended' type is 80 bits long. Are the 64 bits systems better than that ? Thank you Alain ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] 64 Bit / 32 Bit
Op Tue, 2 Oct 2007, schreef Alain Michaud: Hi, in the 32 bits systems, the 'double' type is 64 bits long and the 'extended' type is 80 bits long. Are the 64 bits systems better than that ? Of course not, because the sizes of the floating point types is defined by the IEEE 754 standard. On x86_64, you will have exactly the same types as on i386: single (32-bit), double (64-bit) and extended (80-bit). Daniël___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] 64 Bit / 32 Bit
On 02 Oct 2007, at 21:52, Daniël Mantione wrote: Of course not, because the sizes of the floating point types is defined by the IEEE 754 standard. On x86_64, you will have exactly the same types as on i386: single (32-bit), double (64-bit) and extended (80-bit). Except for Win64, where we only support single and double (because while the x87 is still supported there, it's deprecated). Jonas___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
