> It was allocating mem and swap so busily, that the only thing I could do,
> was to wait, till linux killed it.
Just as a sort of 'confirmation'. I've had the same problem a few weeks
ago.
Joost.
___
fpc-devel maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://l
On Sun, 30 May 2004 00:04:49 +0200 Peter Vreman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> At 20:17 29-5-2004, you wrote:
> >On Fri, 28 May 2004 23:24:51 +0200 (CEST) "Peter Vreman"
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > The current cvs fpc 1.9.3 gives many new warnings. The following
> > > > code
At 20:17 29-5-2004, you wrote:
On Fri, 28 May 2004 23:24:51 +0200 (CEST) "Peter Vreman"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > The current cvs fpc 1.9.3 gives many new warnings. The following code
> > demonstrates 6 types, where I'm not sure why they now need a warning.
> > Maybe the compiler cracks c
On Fri, 28 May 2004 23:24:51 +0200 (CEST) "Peter Vreman"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > The current cvs fpc 1.9.3 gives many new warnings. The following code
> > demonstrates 6 types, where I'm not sure why they now need a warning.
> > Maybe the compiler cracks can tell me, which of them shou
>
> The current cvs fpc 1.9.3 gives many new warnings. The following code
> demonstrates 6 types, where I'm not sure why they now need a warning.
> Maybe the compiler cracks can tell me, which of them should I report as
> bugs:
Now they are called 'many old warnings'.
The current cvs fpc 1.9.3 gives many new warnings. The following code
demonstrates 6 types, where I'm not sure why they now need a warning.
Maybe the compiler cracks can tell me, which of them should I report as
bugs:
program IncredibleWarnings;
{$mode objfpc}{$H+}
// range checks on
{$R+}
use
