Re: [fpc-devel] googleapiconv issues

2023-01-05 Thread Michael Van Canneyt via fpc-devel
On Thu, 5 Jan 2023, Wayne Sherman via fpc-devel wrote: The google api binding generator "googleapiconv" is generating empty files for the api pascal bindings and it also causes access violations randomly. I have not found the issue with AVs yet, but I found out why it is creating empty

[fpc-devel] googleapiconv issues

2023-01-05 Thread Wayne Sherman via fpc-devel
The google api binding generator "googleapiconv" is generating empty files for the api pascal bindings and it also causes access violations randomly. I have not found the issue with AVs yet, but I found out why it is creating empty source code files. restcodegen.pp TRestCodeGenerator was

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

2015-11-29 Thread Ondrej Pokorny
On 11.11.2015 17:47, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: I have several remarks: a) Your TBaseSingleInstance class contains too many methods. It assumes you are using advancedipc. I refactored TBaseSingleInstance so that it doesn't depend on advancedipc. I suggest refactoring such a way that

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

2015-11-11 Thread Ondrej Pokorny
On 29.09.2015 12:52, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: Juha, if you want to implement the single IDE instance, then I would like to ask you to implement this in custapp.pp. This is useful functionality for all kinds of applications, and is since very long on my todo list. On 30.09.2015 18:50,

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

2015-11-11 Thread Michael Van Canneyt
On Wed, 11 Nov 2015, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: On 29.09.2015 12:52, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: Juha, if you want to implement the single IDE instance, then I would like to ask you to implement this in custapp.pp. This is useful functionality for all kinds of applications, and is since very long

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

2015-11-11 Thread Ondrej Pokorny
On 11.11.2015 17:47, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: I checked the patch and applied it, so people can try it. I have several remarks: a) Your TBaseSingleInstance class contains too many methods. It assumes you are using advancedipc. I suggest refactoring such a way that advancedipc is in the

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

2015-10-03 Thread Ondrej Pokorny
On 03.10.2015 19:21, Tomas Hajny wrote: Thanks, I tested it under OS/2 now. Both the "simple" and "advanced" test programs work, well done! I noticed two issues when running the "advanced" tests, though. First, the server increases the CPU considerably. There seems to be a loop permanently

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

2015-10-03 Thread Ondrej Pokorny
On 03.10.2015 19:21, Tomas Hajny wrote: Thanks, I tested it under OS/2 now. Both the "simple" and "advanced" test programs work, well done! I noticed two issues when running the "advanced" tests, though. First, the server increases the CPU considerably. There seems to be a loop permanently

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

2015-10-03 Thread Ondrej Pokorny
On 03.10.2015 19:21, Tomas Hajny wrote: Thanks, I tested it under OS/2 now. Both the "simple" and "advanced" test programs work, well done! I noticed two issues when running the "advanced" tests, though. First, the server increases the CPU considerably. There seems to be a loop permanently

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

2015-10-03 Thread Tomas Hajny
On 21 Sep 15, at 14:03, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: . . > Michael Van Canneyt & Tomas Hajny & everybody who wants to test: > > I prepared a fully compatible AdvancedIPC unit. See the attachment. > There is a unit mysimpleipc.pp that should replace the simpleipc.pp in > FPC sources. I renamed it in

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

2015-10-03 Thread Tomas Hajny
On Sat, October 3, 2015 19:59, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: > On 03.10.2015 19:21, Tomas Hajny wrote: >> Thanks, I tested it under OS/2 now. Both the "simple" and "advanced" >> test programs work, well done! I noticed two issues when running the >> "advanced" tests, though. First, the server increases

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

2015-10-03 Thread Tomas Hajny
On Sat, October 3, 2015 19:54, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: > On 03.10.2015 19:21, Tomas Hajny wrote: . . > Attached patched for FPC and Lazarus to sync advancedipc.pp. The current > version in FPC trunk is out-dated (the Lazarus trunk version just misses > the AllFilesMask constant). Thanks, I

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

2015-09-30 Thread Ondrej Pokorny
On 29.09.2015 22:47, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: Let's first see how Ondrej does it. See the patch attached. A simple demo program is attached as well (SITest.lpr). advancedipc.pp: refactoring MsgID -> RequestID and some smaller issues solved. API hasn't changed. singleinstance.pp: class

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

2015-09-29 Thread Juha Manninen
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: > I am not proposing to make a new class. > I want a property "SingeInstance" in CustApp which activates this > automatically. I had the very same idea when this was discussed a long time ago in Lazarus list.

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

2015-09-29 Thread Ondrej Pokorny
On 29.09.2015 14:42, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: On Tue, 29 Sep 2015, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: OK, I see your point. Yes, I think it is possible and even not that much work to do. I programmed "multiple instances" handling into Lazarus IDE. It's the same like e.g. Adobe Photoshop or VLC player

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

2015-09-29 Thread Michael Van Canneyt
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: On 29.09.2015 12:52, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: I added it to fpc/packages/fcl-base. It compiles OK, there are no dangerous dependencies except sysutils and classes. Michael, you added the wrong (old) unit from the bug report, not the latest

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

2015-09-29 Thread Ondrej Pokorny
On 29.09.2015 12:52, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: I added it to fpc/packages/fcl-base. It compiles OK, there are no dangerous dependencies except sysutils and classes. Michael, you added the wrong (old) unit from the bug report, not the latest simpleipc-compatible one from the mailing list.

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

2015-09-29 Thread Ondrej Pokorny
On 29.09.2015 15:42, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: On 29.09.2015 12:52, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: I added it to fpc/packages/fcl-base. It compiles OK, there are no dangerous dependencies except sysutils and classes. Michael, you added the wrong (old) unit from the bug report, not the latest

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

2015-09-29 Thread Juha Manninen
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: > Juha, I changed the advancedipc.pas unit (this one from the mailing list is > newer than from the bug report). I can prepare a new patch for the bug > report. No need for a new patch if it did not change otherwise. I

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

2015-09-29 Thread Ondrej Pokorny
On 29.09.2015 15:01, Juha Manninen wrote: On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: Juha, I changed the advancedipc.pas unit (this one from the mailing list is newer than from the bug report). I can prepare a new patch for the bug report. No need for a new

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

2015-09-29 Thread Michael Van Canneyt
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015, Juha Manninen wrote: On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: I am not proposing to make a new class. I want a property "SingeInstance" in CustApp which activates this automatically. I had the very same idea when this was

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

2015-09-29 Thread Juha Manninen
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: > For simpleIPC, yes. But the new implementation has no dependencies except > sysutils, classes. So the argument becomes void. It adds extra code to every application. Maybe not too much though. > ... > That is

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

2015-09-29 Thread Michael Van Canneyt
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: On 29.09.2015 15:35, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: 1. Using a LCL component means that you must instantiate a form/datamodule first. By that time, a database connection may already have been made (just to name something), which is exactly what

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

2015-09-29 Thread Ondrej Pokorny
On 29.09.2015 15:35, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: 1. Using a LCL component means that you must instantiate a form/datamodule first. By that time, a database connection may already have been made (just to name something), which is exactly what you want to avoid. The check for single

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

2015-09-29 Thread Michael Van Canneyt
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: On 29.09.2015 13:50, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: You may not think this is important, but for beginners, this can be a tremendous aid. The easier we make it, the better. Lazarus is a RAD environment, after all. Michael. OK, I see your point.

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

2015-09-29 Thread Ondrej Pokorny
On 29.09.2015 12:52, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: I added it to fpc/packages/fcl-base. It compiles OK, there are no dangerous dependencies except sysutils and classes. Michael, you added the wrong (old) unit from the bug report, not the latest simpleipc-compatible one from the mailing list.

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

2015-09-29 Thread Juha Manninen
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 3:03 PM, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: > Michael Van Canneyt & Tomas Hajny & everybody who wants to test: > > I prepared a fully compatible AdvancedIPC unit. See the attachment. > ... Michael and Tomas, I am planning to copy AdvancedIPC temporarily to Lazarus

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

2015-09-29 Thread Ondrej Pokorny
On 29.09.2015 13:50, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: You may not think this is important, but for beginners, this can be a tremendous aid. The easier we make it, the better. Lazarus is a RAD environment, after all. Michael. OK, I see your point. Yes, I think it is possible and even not that

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

2015-09-29 Thread Michael Van Canneyt
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: On 29.09.2015 12:52, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: I added it to fpc/packages/fcl-base. It compiles OK, there are no dangerous dependencies except sysutils and classes. Thanks! Juha, if you want to implement the single IDE instance, then I would

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

2015-09-29 Thread Tomas Hajny
On Tue, September 29, 2015 12:30, Juha Manninen wrote: > On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 3:03 PM, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: >> Michael Van Canneyt & Tomas Hajny & everybody who wants to test: >> >> I prepared a fully compatible AdvancedIPC unit. See the attachment. >> ... > > Michael and

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

2015-09-29 Thread Ondrej Pokorny
On 29.09.2015 12:52, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: I added it to fpc/packages/fcl-base. It compiles OK, there are no dangerous dependencies except sysutils and classes. Thanks! Juha, if you want to implement the single IDE instance, then I would like to ask you to implement this in

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

2015-09-29 Thread Michael Van Canneyt
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015, Tomas Hajny wrote: On Tue, September 29, 2015 12:30, Juha Manninen wrote: On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 3:03 PM, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: Michael Van Canneyt & Tomas Hajny & everybody who wants to test: I prepared a fully compatible AdvancedIPC unit. See the

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

2015-09-29 Thread Michael Van Canneyt
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015, Luiz Americo Pereira Camara wrote: 2015-09-29 11:50 GMT-03:00 Luiz Americo Pereira Camara < luizameri...@gmail.com>: It can be used without the component. The component is just a convenience. See the examples

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

2015-09-29 Thread Luiz Americo Pereira Camara
2015-09-29 10:35 GMT-03:00 Michael Van Canneyt : > > > On Tue, 29 Sep 2015, Juha Manninen wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Michael Van Canneyt >> wrote: >> >>> I am not proposing to make a new class. >>> I want a property "SingeInstance"

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

2015-09-29 Thread Michael Van Canneyt
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015, Luiz Americo Pereira Camara wrote: 2. Then it is only available in visually designed applications. Services, website servers and custom console apps are non-visual. I am specificially thinking FastCGI processes. See above I didn't say it could not be done with

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

2015-09-29 Thread Luiz Americo Pereira Camara
2015-09-29 11:50 GMT-03:00 Luiz Americo Pereira Camara < luizameri...@gmail.com>: > > > It can be used without the component. The component is just a convenience. > See the examples > https://github.com/blikblum/luipack/blob/master/uniqueinstance/testraw/project1.lpr Luiz

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

2015-09-29 Thread Luiz Americo Pereira Camara
Unit uniqueinstanceraw Please look carefully Luiz Em 29/09/2015 12:01, "Michael Van Canneyt" escreveu: > > > On Tue, 29 Sep 2015, Luiz Americo Pereira Camara wrote: > > 2015-09-29 11:50 GMT-03:00 Luiz Americo Pereira Camara < >> luizameri...@gmail.com>: >> >> >>> >>> It

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

2015-09-29 Thread Ondrej Pokorny
On 29.09.2015 16:09, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: Both are OK. Use of one does not exclude use of the other. I was going to add it in CustApp anyway as soon as I had looked at your implementation. I started working on the CustApp variant. It's even simpler than the LCL component because you

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

2015-09-29 Thread Michael Van Canneyt
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015, Luiz Americo Pereira Camara wrote: On the other side, i still think that should be kept out of TCustomApplication. Well, I have already explained why I want it exactly there :) While the simple requirement of checking another instance is easy to implement into

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

2015-09-29 Thread Michael Van Canneyt
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: On 29.09.2015 16:09, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: Both are OK. Use of one does not exclude use of the other. I was going to add it in CustApp anyway as soon as I had looked at your implementation. I started working on the CustApp variant. It's

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

2015-09-29 Thread Michael Van Canneyt
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015, Luiz Americo Pereira Camara wrote: Unit uniqueinstanceraw Please look carefully My sincere apologies, I was too fast and indeed opened the wrong unit. uniqueinstance, and uniqueinstancebase, not uniqueinstanceraw :( So, it could be used as well, if we can sort

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

2015-09-29 Thread Luiz Americo Pereira Camara
2015-09-29 16:12 GMT-03:00 Michael Van Canneyt : > > > On Tue, 29 Sep 2015, Luiz Americo Pereira Camara wrote: > > Unit uniqueinstanceraw >> > > >> Please look carefully >> > > My sincere apologies, > > No problem. To be clear, i don't plead to uniqueinstance be used by

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

2015-09-16 Thread waldo kitty
On 09/15/2015 12:07 PM, Tomas Hajny wrote: On Tue, September 15, 2015 10:04, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: On Tue, 15 Sep 2015, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: . . Are there some high level crossplatform semaphore functions in the FCL? The cthreads/cIntSemaphoreOpen etc. seem to be available on unix

[fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

2015-09-15 Thread Ondrej Pokorny
I've developed a "single/multiple instances" feature for the Lazarus IDE. For this feature I need an IPC. First I tried to use simpleipc but I have struggled on bugs and missing functionality. Particularly what I found: 1.) BUG: You can register multiple servers on Windows with the same name

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

2015-09-15 Thread Tomas Hajny
On Tue, September 15, 2015 08:58, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: > On Mon, 14 Sep 2015, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: > >> I've developed a "single/multiple instances" feature for the Lazarus >> IDE. For >> this feature I need an IPC. First I tried to use simpleipc but I have >> struggled on bugs and missing

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

2015-09-15 Thread Michael Van Canneyt
On Mon, 14 Sep 2015, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: I've developed a "single/multiple instances" feature for the Lazarus IDE. For this feature I need an IPC. First I tried to use simpleipc but I have struggled on bugs and missing functionality. Particularly what I found: 1.) BUG: You can register

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

2015-09-15 Thread Ondrej Pokorny
On 15.09.2015 08:58, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: On Mon, 14 Sep 2015, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: I've developed a "single/multiple instances" feature for the Lazarus IDE. For this feature I need an IPC. First I tried to use simpleipc but I have struggled on bugs and missing functionality.

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

2015-09-15 Thread Michael Van Canneyt
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: On 15.09.2015 08:58, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: On Mon, 14 Sep 2015, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: I've developed a "single/multiple instances" feature for the Lazarus IDE. For this feature I need an IPC. First I tried to use simpleipc but I have

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

2015-09-15 Thread Jonas Maebe
On 15/09/15 13:33, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: This is because Michael Van Canneyt pointed me to "man sem_overview". The first Google search pointed me to http://linux.die.net/man/7/sem_overview where I found the "Named semaphores" with functions sem_open, sem_close etc. with the description that

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

2015-09-15 Thread Ondrej Pokorny
On 15.09.2015 13:22, Michael Schnell wrote: On 09/15/2015 01:09 PM, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: IPC = Inter PROCESS Communication. I know that you know this, but Ondrej is talking about cthreads in one of his message, so I tried to politely set a trigger. -Michael This is because Michael

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

2015-09-15 Thread Michael Van Canneyt
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015, Michael Schnell wrote: On 09/14/2015 03:56 PM, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: 3.) MISSING: Multiple clients (from different processes) talk to one server. 4.) MISSING: Client is able to receive a response on a request. 5.) MISSING: (Optionally, not default) client sends a

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

2015-09-15 Thread Michael Schnell
On 09/15/2015 01:09 PM, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: IPC = Inter PROCESS Communication. I know that you know this, but Ondrej is talking about cthreads in one of his message, so I tried to politely set a trigger. -Michael ___ fpc-devel maillist -

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

2015-09-15 Thread Tomas Hajny
On Tue, September 15, 2015 10:04, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: > On Tue, 15 Sep 2015, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: . . >> Are there some high level crossplatform semaphore functions in the FCL? >> The >> cthreads/cIntSemaphoreOpen etc. seem to be available on unix only. What >> about >> OS/2? > >

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

2015-09-15 Thread Michael Van Canneyt
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015, Tomas Hajny wrote: On Tue, September 15, 2015 10:04, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: On Tue, 15 Sep 2015, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: . . Are there some high level crossplatform semaphore functions in the FCL? The cthreads/cIntSemaphoreOpen etc. seem to be available on unix only.

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

2015-09-15 Thread Michael Schnell
On 09/14/2015 03:56 PM, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: 3.) MISSING: Multiple clients (from different processes) talk to one server. 4.) MISSING: Client is able to receive a response on a request. 5.) MISSING: (Optionally, not default) client sends a request to a server that isn't running. The server is

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

2015-09-15 Thread Michael Schnell
On 09/15/2015 02:43 PM, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: With my paranoid mind I of course assumed you were hijacking the thread... Of course I was eagerly waiting on Ondrej to confirm that he was looking for thread support :-) :-) :-) -Michael ___

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

2015-09-15 Thread Michael Van Canneyt
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015, Michael Schnell wrote: On 09/15/2015 01:09 PM, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: IPC = Inter PROCESS Communication. I know that you know this, but Ondrej is talking about cthreads in one of his message, so I tried to politely set a trigger. With my paranoid mind I of

Re: [fpc-devel] Lazarus issues on ARM Linux

2013-04-09 Thread Thaddy
On 8-4-2013 14:49, peter green wrote: Michel Catudal wrote: I am also having some issues with Lazarus, I am not sure if it is the right forum to talk about it. I had a previous version working fine on Rasphberry Pi. For some reason I can't get it to work on Mele A2000G. I have compiled it on

Re: [fpc-devel] Lazarus issues on ARM Linux

2013-04-08 Thread peter green
Michel Catudal wrote: I am also having some issues with Lazarus, I am not sure if it is the right forum to talk about it. I had a previous version working fine on Rasphberry Pi. For some reason I can't get it to work on Mele A2000G. I have compiled it on gentoo on the Mele, using distcc and

Re: [fpc-devel] Lazarus issues on ARM Linux

2013-04-08 Thread mcatudal
- Original Message - From: peter green plugw...@p10link.net To: FPC developers' list fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org Sent: Monday, April 8, 2013 8:49:06 AM Subject: Re: [fpc-devel] Lazarus issues on ARM Linux Michel Catudal wrote: I am also having some issues with Lazarus, I am

Re: [fpc-devel] Lazarus issues on ARM Linux

2013-04-08 Thread Michel Catudal
Le 2013-04-08 13:44, mcatu...@comcast.net a écrit : I am not using an upstream binary file but compiled my own on gentoo. On gentoo you compile everything. The scripts that come with gentoo ARM are setup for hard floats only. I will check what you are saying tonight anyway. I will first

[fpc-devel] Lazarus issues on ARM Linux

2013-04-07 Thread Michel Catudal
I am also having some issues with Lazarus, I am not sure if it is the right forum to talk about it. I had a previous version working fine on Rasphberry Pi. For some reason I can't get it to work on Mele A2000G. I have compiled it on gentoo on the Mele, using distcc and locally, same results. I

Re: [fpc-devel] Lazarus issues on ARM Linux

2013-04-07 Thread Sven Barth
Am 08.04.2013 02:34 schrieb Michel Catudal mcatu...@comcast.net: I am also having some issues with Lazarus, I am not sure if it is the right forum to talk about it. I had a previous version working fine on Rasphberry Pi. For some reason I can't get it to work on Mele A2000G. I have compiled it

[fpc-devel] Two issues with variant type definitions

2010-11-11 Thread Sergei Gorelkin
Hello, Two questions I wanted to ask: 1) There are two variant type defintions (varxxx constants): one in compiler/symdef.pas, another one in rtl/inc/varianth.inc. Worse, they are out of sync. Is it really necessary to have a separate set of these definitions in compiler? 2) In FPC,

Re: [fpc-devel] Two issues with variant type definitions

2010-11-11 Thread Florian Klaempfl
Am 11.11.2010 15:19, schrieb Sergei Gorelkin: Hello, Two questions I wanted to ask: 1) There are two variant type defintions (varxxx constants): one in compiler/symdef.pas, another one in rtl/inc/varianth.inc. Worse, they are out of sync. Is it really necessary to have a separate set of

Re: [fpc-devel] Two issues with variant type definitions

2010-11-11 Thread Sergei Gorelkin
Florian Klaempfl пишет: Am 11.11.2010 15:19, schrieb Sergei Gorelkin: Hello, Two questions I wanted to ask: 1) There are two variant type defintions (varxxx constants): one in compiler/symdef.pas, another one in rtl/inc/varianth.inc. Worse, they are out of sync. Is it really necessary to have

Re: [fpc-devel] $IF issues

2006-08-14 Thread Peter Vreman
Looking at the code below... {$if defined(ver2_0)} {$note This is not delphi compatible. } {$endif} Is this a feature or a FPC bug? FPC allows the $IF to be closed with the $ENDIF as well as the $IFEND. This is not Delphi compatible. The closing tag for $IF is $IFEND The closing

Re: [fpc-devel] $IF issues

2006-08-14 Thread Daniël Mantione
Op Mon, 14 Aug 2006, schreef Graeme Geldenhuys: On 8/14/06, Peter Vreman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is this a feature or a FPC bug? FPC allows the $IF to be closed with the $ENDIF as well as the $IFEND. This is not Delphi compatible. The closing tag for $IF is $IFEND The

Re: [fpc-devel] $IF issues

2006-08-14 Thread Graeme Geldenhuys
On 8/14/06, Vincent Snijders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You miss the point: Delphi compatibility mode is for people who develop for FPC, but want to compile occasionally in Delphi. In the current situation they are not aware of this weakness of Delphi (no support of $ENDIF for $IF), until they

Re: [fpc-devel] $IF issues

2006-08-14 Thread Daniël Mantione
Op Mon, 14 Aug 2006, schreef Vincent Snijders: You miss the point: Delphi compatibility mode is for people who develop for FPC, but want to compile occasionally in Delphi. It can be used that way, but its main purpose is to support Delphi constructions that we consider broken and therefore

Re: [fpc-devel] $IF issues

2006-08-14 Thread Michael Van Canneyt
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006, Daniël Mantione wrote: Op Mon, 14 Aug 2006, schreef Vincent Snijders: You miss the point: Delphi compatibility mode is for people who develop for FPC, but want to compile occasionally in Delphi. It can be used that way, but its main purpose is to support Delphi

Re: [fpc-devel] $IF issues

2006-08-14 Thread Graeme Geldenhuys
On 8/14/06, Daniël Mantione [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: mode. To write new code that is compilable by both FPC and Delphi, Objpas mode should suit as well as Delphi mode. Not quite! The project I am working on (tiOPF) is mainly used by Delphi developers, as I mentioned before. My first thought

Re: [fpc-devel] $IF issues

2006-08-14 Thread Florian Klaempfl
Graeme Geldenhuys wrote: On 8/14/06, Vincent Snijders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You miss the point: Delphi compatibility mode is for people who develop for FPC, but want to compile occasionally in Delphi. In the current situation they are not aware of this weakness of Delphi (no support of

Re: [fpc-devel] LinkLib Issues In Lazarus and in FPC-2.0.2

2006-07-18 Thread Daniël Mantione
Op Tue, 18 Jul 2006, schreef Jonas Maebe: You need something more than merely the remapping of library names. As I said, you can remap unit names. At some point the user will have to decide to which one he wants to link, doing it by a unit name remap looks an elegant solution to me. I

Re: [fpc-devel] LinkLib Issues In Lazarus and in FPC-2.0.2

2006-07-18 Thread Vinzent Hoefler
On Monday 17 July 2006 15:33, Micha Nelissen wrote: Vinzent Hoefler wrote: Of course they don't. Unlike some other languages where such things are standardized quite clearly, (most) consistency, dependency and linking issues are beyond the scope of the official C-standard. I'm not talking

Re: [fpc-devel] LinkLib Issues In Lazarus and in FPC-2.0.2

2006-07-18 Thread Marco van de Voort
Tue, Jul 18, 2006 at 01:22:40AM +0200, Jonas Maebe wrote: libnames when determining how to link, with the default being 1:1. I know, but I was trying to point out that e.g. on Mac OS X sometimes you may need -lgtk-1.2.0 -lgdk-1.2.0 -lgdk_pixbuf and sometimes -framework Gtk+-Cocoa

Re: [fpc-devel] LinkLib Issues In Lazarus and in FPC-2.0.2

2006-07-18 Thread Aleš Katona
Alright everyone, just stop this ok? I was angry like hell when I first read the ORIGINAL poster's message about FreeBSD (hint, topic no longer valid in your discussion) I got even more angry and my response was very immature. I would like to apologise to everyone and especialy the original

Re: [fpc-devel] LinkLib Issues In Lazarus and in FPC-2.0.2

2006-07-18 Thread Jonas Maebe
On 18 Jul 2006, at 12:05, Aleš Katona wrote: This whole discussion is useless. Better library linking support is not useless. Jonas___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] LinkLib Issues In Lazarus and in FPC-2.0.2

2006-07-17 Thread Bob
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ale? Katona wrote: Btw. fpc 2.0.2 is in ports now. Just a binary distribution right? I did not see the sources in ports, which would have to be patched to fix the lib naming errors. You need to symlink those libraries or patch manualy, but we

Re: [fpc-devel] LinkLib Issues In Lazarus and in FPC-2.0.2

2006-07-17 Thread Aleš Katona
Just a binary distribution right? I did not see the sources in ports, which would have to be patched to fix the lib naming errors. Yes but one guy said he's working on source based one. Are you saying that code produced by this Lazarus/FPC setup will not run properly on older freebsd

Re: [fpc-devel] LinkLib Issues In Lazarus and in FPC-2.0.2

2006-07-17 Thread Marco van de Voort
Greetings to the Fpc-Devel list: the following libraries were not found by ld: glib12, gdk12, and gtk12. This is a know issue without good solution, since the problem originates in the FreeBSD ports management. The best solution is: - for 2.0.2 manually create relevant symlinks to the

Re: [fpc-devel] LinkLib Issues In Lazarus and in FPC-2.0.2

2006-07-17 Thread Micha Nelissen
Aleš Katona wrote: Hi Bob and welcome to the world of crap. Seriously and honestly, the FreeBSD porters made a big bad pile of crap when they some years ago decided to name gtk-12 and others as gtk12. Welcome to the world of shit.. eh sorry I ment unix. It was written in C what would

Re: [fpc-devel] LinkLib Issues In Lazarus and in FPC-2.0.2

2006-07-17 Thread Marco van de Voort
Ale? Katona wrote: Hi Bob and welcome to the world of crap. Seriously and honestly, the FreeBSD porters made a big bad pile of crap when they some years ago decided to name gtk-12 and others as gtk12. Welcome to the world of shit.. eh sorry I ment unix. It was written in C what

Re: [fpc-devel] LinkLib Issues In Lazarus and in FPC-2.0.2

2006-07-17 Thread Michael Van Canneyt
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006, Marco van de Voort wrote: Greetings to the Fpc-Devel list: the following libraries were not found by ld: glib12, gdk12, and gtk12. This is a know issue without good solution, since the problem originates in the FreeBSD ports management. The best solution is: - for

Re: [fpc-devel] LinkLib Issues In Lazarus and in FPC-2.0.2

2006-07-17 Thread Marco van de Voort
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 10:50:33AM +0200, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: - for 2.0.2 manually create relevant symlinks to the libs. - for 2.0.4, use linkaliasing Funny! I moved away from Linux mainly because of Library-Hell issues :-) Library hell exists on all platforms. Running from it is

Re: [fpc-devel] LinkLib Issues In Lazarus and in FPC-2.0.2

2006-07-17 Thread Marco van de Voort
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 11:21:36AM +0200, Micha Nelissen wrote: Marco van de Voort wrote: This has nothing to do with source based vs binary. If e.g. debian renamed libs tomorrow inside a branch, it would have the same effect. They can't do that without breaking all other packages in the

Re: [fpc-devel] LinkLib Issues In Lazarus and in FPC-2.0.2

2006-07-17 Thread Marco van de Voort
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 11:19:22AM +0200, Jonas Maebe wrote: They refer to pkgconfig or keep on using the -RELEASE ports branch (which is security only), Of course I can't take a tool that emits gcc parametes seriously (since some ad hoc parsing will probably break on the first gcc

Re: [fpc-devel] LinkLib Issues In Lazarus and in FPC-2.0.2

2006-07-17 Thread Jonas Maebe
On 17 Jul 2006, at 11:59, Marco van de Voort wrote: It generates ld parameters, not gcc parameters. So you don't have to parse them unless you want to use an internal linker. Thnks, will improve the text for the wiki. Not that it changes much, don't like an external called from the

Re: [fpc-devel] LinkLib Issues In Lazarus and in FPC-2.0.2

2006-07-17 Thread Jonas Maebe
On 17 Jul 2006, at 12:21, Daniël Mantione wrote: That doesn't mean Mac OS X doesn't potentially have the same library problems though, since most open source based libraries are not distributed as a framework. IMHO crap like *_config are only tricks used by C people used to work around

Re: [fpc-devel] LinkLib Issues In Lazarus and in FPC-2.0.2

2006-07-17 Thread Jonas Maebe
On 17 Jul 2006, at 12:33, Jonas Maebe wrote: There simply should be no reason why you want such complexity. A library has a name, you link to it by name, basta. A library can also exist in at least multiple locations, versions (both ABI- compatible and -incompatible with previous

Re: [fpc-devel] LinkLib Issues In Lazarus and in FPC-2.0.2

2006-07-17 Thread Florian Klaempfl
Bob wrote: Funny! I moved away from Linux mainly because of Library-Hell issues :-) You've to move away from unix then :) I made similiar experiences when porting FPC to Solaris. ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org

Re: [fpc-devel] LinkLib Issues In Lazarus and in FPC-2.0.2

2006-07-17 Thread Marco van de Voort
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 12:16:10PM +0200, Jonas Maebe wrote: There is no other way to properly support linking to external libraries, unless you use something like Mac OS X' frameworks (which does support transparent versioning and multi-version support, including name changes of

Re: [fpc-devel] LinkLib Issues In Lazarus and in FPC-2.0.2

2006-07-17 Thread Micha Nelissen
Marco van de Voort wrote: They can't do that without breaking all other packages in the archive using this package. They don't get rebuilt automatically AFAIK, and that's where the difference is IMHO. I don't understand this. Afaik there is no difference at all. Could you be more elaborate

Re: [fpc-devel] LinkLib Issues In Lazarus and in FPC-2.0.2

2006-07-17 Thread Jonas Maebe
On 17 Jul 2006, at 13:42, Marco van de Voort wrote: That's not the point. The point is that I consider a solution, that tries to collect this data automatically, worse than the current situation. There's no reason why a default fallback to the current system couldn't be supported. IOW

Re: [fpc-devel] LinkLib Issues In Lazarus and in FPC-2.0.2

2006-07-17 Thread Daniël Mantione
Op Mon, 17 Jul 2006, schreef Jonas Maebe: There's nothing C-specific about libraries, nor about the *config scripts. At most it would be linker-specific. There is, those scripts mainly exist because a C compiler cannot determine the dependencies of a library. I.e. if you like libgtk you

Re: [fpc-devel] LinkLib Issues In Lazarus and in FPC-2.0.2

2006-07-17 Thread Jonas Maebe
On 17 Jul 2006, at 14:03, Daniël Mantione wrote: There's nothing C-specific about libraries, nor about the *config scripts. At most it would be linker-specific. There is, those scripts mainly exist because a C compiler cannot determine the dependencies of a library. I.e. if you like

Re: [fpc-devel] LinkLib Issues In Lazarus and in FPC-2.0.2

2006-07-17 Thread Marco van de Voort
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 01:56:38PM +0200, Micha Nelissen wrote: Marco van de Voort wrote: They can't do that without breaking all other packages in the archive using this package. They don't get rebuilt automatically AFAIK, and that's where the difference is IMHO. I don't understand

Re: [fpc-devel] LinkLib Issues In Lazarus and in FPC-2.0.2

2006-07-17 Thread Marco van de Voort
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 01:57:01PM +0200, Jonas Maebe wrote: That's not the point. The point is that I consider a solution, that tries to collect this data automatically, worse than the current situation. There's no reason why a default fallback to the current system couldn't be

Re: [fpc-devel] LinkLib Issues In Lazarus and in FPC-2.0.2

2006-07-17 Thread Micha Nelissen
Marco van de Voort wrote: On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 01:56:38PM +0200, Micha Nelissen wrote: the library name correctly according to that distro's packaging rules) then all dependent software is automatically recompiled for the new version (and name), and thus no one notices any breakages. Except

Re: [fpc-devel] LinkLib Issues In Lazarus and in FPC-2.0.2

2006-07-17 Thread Jonas Maebe
On 17 Jul 2006, at 14:31, Marco van de Voort wrote: There's no reason why a default fallback to the current system couldn't be supported. If it doesn't exist. But what if it fails? The current solution also fails from time to time. And there would switch to disable this gtk-config

  1   2   >