On 29 Oct 2007, at 07:54, Tobias Giesen wrote:
I am trying to compile the latest FPC 2.3 SVN on OS X i386 with
CPU_TARGET=powerpc.
The crosscompiling guide on the freepascal web site says to do a:
make cycle
make cycle only works in the compiler subdirectory.
But cycle seems to be no
Jonas Maebe schreef:
On 29 Oct 2007, at 07:54, Tobias Giesen wrote:
I am trying to compile the latest FPC 2.3 SVN on OS X i386 with
CPU_TARGET=powerpc.
The crosscompiling guide on the freepascal web site says to do a:
make cycle
make cycle only works in the compiler subdirectory.
But
On 29 Oct 2007, at 11:03, Tobias Giesen wrote:
I am now trying the latest Lazarus snapshots on OS X 10.3 on a powerpc
Mac. The application compiles 99% fine but at the end it fails with
the
following errors (from the assembler, I assume):
unknown section attribute: no_dead_strip
[...]
On 29 Oct 2007, at 09:35, Jonas Maebe wrote:
Fatal: Can't find unit process used by pkgglobals
How can I fix this?
That's a bug in the current svn sources (which breaks compilation
on virtually all platforms), and will probably be fixed somewhere
today.
Should be fixed now.
Jonas
Hello,
I am now trying the latest Lazarus snapshots on OS X 10.3 on a powerpc
Mac. The application compiles 99% fine but at the end it fails with the
following errors (from the assembler, I assume):
unknown section attribute: no_dead_strip
[...]
Error while assembling Exit Code 1
Is there a
On 29 Oct 2007, at 11:36, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
Yes, add the -CX- -X- command line options. Dead code stripping is
not supported by the 10.3 assembler/linker. The compiler has however
no clue on which OS version it is running, so if Lazarus tells it to
generate smart linkable code, it will
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 11:08:48 +0100
Jonas Maebe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 29 Oct 2007, at 11:03, Tobias Giesen wrote:
I am now trying the latest Lazarus snapshots on OS X 10.3 on a
powerpc Mac. The application compiles 99% fine but at the end it
fails with the
following errors (from
On 27 Oct 2007, at 17:22, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
Also, all those icons in the menus look pretty weird (very few Mac
apps have that, and none that I currently use does),
Should they be hidden?
In general, I would say: yes. Maybe it should be an option which by
default is off, or so.
Hello,
thanks for the new Makefiles! I am now at SVN rev. 8988 and when I
enter
cd fpc/compiler
make cycle CPU_TARGET=powerpc
I get:
Makefile:125: *** Compiler ppcrossppc not found. Stop.
I don't know what's happening. In this step, I do not want to
crosscompile. I want to _make_ the
On 29 Oct 2007, at 11:26, Tobias Giesen wrote:
thanks for the new Makefiles! I am now at SVN rev. 8988 and when I
enter
cd fpc/compiler
make cycle CPU_TARGET=powerpc
I get:
Makefile:125: *** Compiler ppcrossppc not found. Stop.
I don't know what's happening. In this step, I do not want to
Op Mon, 29 Oct 2007, schreef Jonas Maebe:
On 27 Oct 2007, at 17:22, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
Also, all those icons in the menus look pretty weird (very few Mac
apps have that, and none that I currently use does),
Should they be hidden?
In general, I would say: yes. Maybe it
Yes, add the -CX- -X- command line options.
Or better: turn off all smart linking related options in Lazarus.
Thanks!
I did both, but somehow the error is still there. All the units compile
fine, only the last step where the .dpr file is compiled fails. The
.s file of the main program remains
On 29 Oct 2007, at 11:08, Jonas Maebe wrote:
unknown section attribute: no_dead_strip
[...]
Error while assembling Exit Code 1
Is there a solution for this problem?
Yes, add the -CX- -X- command line options.
Or better: turn off all smart linking related options in Lazarus.
Jonas
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 11:36:44 +0100 (CET)
Daniël Mantione [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Op Mon, 29 Oct 2007, schreef Jonas Maebe:
On 27 Oct 2007, at 17:22, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
Also, all those icons in the menus look pretty weird (very few
Mac apps have that, and none that I
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Daniël Mantione wrote:
Op Mon, 29 Oct 2007, schreef Jonas Maebe:
On 27 Oct 2007, at 17:22, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
Also, all those icons in the menus look pretty weird (very few Mac
apps have that, and none that I currently use does),
Should
Also, all those icons in the menus look pretty weird (very few Mac
apps have that, and none that I currently use does),
Also, on Windows I found the spacing was a bit big but not sure if this is
normal MS OFfice style look and feel since I don't use that software much.
For example it looks
It's just one more funny thing one must realize,
when comparing real numbers with some exact
real constants. After this, I will try to never
compare doubles directly, but using tricks like
above. Because, in this digital world
1 + 0.4 - 0.4 1.
My opinion:
This is ludicrous.
The end user
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, L wrote:
It's just one more funny thing one must realize,
when comparing real numbers with some exact
real constants. After this, I will try to never
compare doubles directly, but using tricks like
above. Because, in this digital world
1 + 0.4 - 0.4 1.
My
The programmer definitely should care. He has to make the right choice
in what type he chooses, so he must be aware of any 'quircks' of the type
he is using, and that includes how things are rounded and how they are
stored in memory. That's why there are IEEE references for this.
It's his
On 29 Oct 2007, at 15:30, L wrote:
It's just one more funny thing one must realize,
when comparing real numbers with some exact
real constants. After this, I will try to never
compare doubles directly, but using tricks like
above. Because, in this digital world
1 + 0.4 - 0.4 1.
My opinion:
Op Mon, 29 Oct 2007, schreef L:
It's just one more funny thing one must realize,
when comparing real numbers with some exact
real constants. After this, I will try to never
compare doubles directly, but using tricks like
above. Because, in this digital world
1 + 0.4 - 0.4 1.
My
Your Casio doesn't do comparisons. Just round to 10 digits before you
compare and it'll work just as fine as on your Casio.
Daniël
And some off topic trivia:
My casio says 10 + 2 digits near the model number.
Does this mean it displays 10 digits and stores 2 in the background, or that I
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, L wrote:
The programmer definitely should care. He has to make the right choice
in what type he chooses, so he must be aware of any 'quircks' of the type
he is using, and that includes how things are rounded and how they are
stored in memory. That's why there are
Op Mon, 29 Oct 2007, schreef L:
Your Casio doesn't do comparisons. Just round to 10 digits before you
compare and it'll work just as fine as on your Casio.
Daniël
And some off topic trivia:
My casio says 10 + 2 digits near the model number.
Does this mean it displays 10
On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 07:30:03AM -0700, L wrote:
It's just one more funny thing one must realize,
when comparing real numbers with some exact
real constants. After this, I will try to never
compare doubles directly, but using tricks like
above. Because, in this digital world
1 + 0.4
The end user is using a high level language and should not care whether the
computer is digital or analog.
Unfortunately, there is a problem. One can try to hide it (as calculators
attempt to do), but in the longer run that is going to be unsuccessful
and even dangerous.
Same as
Op Mon, 29 Oct 2007, schreef L:
Same as ansistring.. it can be dangerous to hide all the intricate details of
a
pchar/bytearray, which is what ansistring does. But ansistrings are really
useful for 'every day' use.
Wrong. A string can be represented alphadequate, as it is called; an
It's just one more funny thing one must realize,
when comparing real numbers with some exact
real constants. After this, I will try to never
compare doubles directly, but using tricks like
above. Because, in this digital world
1 + 0.4 - 0.4 1.
In binary that is 0001 +
Op Mon, 29 Oct 2007, schreef Stephen Dickason:
It's just one more funny thing one must realize,
when comparing real numbers with some exact
real constants. After this, I will try to never
compare doubles directly, but using tricks like
above. Because, in this digital world
1 + 0.4 -
Stephen Dickason wrote:
In binary that is 0001 + 0.0110011001100 - 0.0110011001100 because
we hit recurring decimals a lot more in binary than decimal. I wonder why we
don't have a standard format (maybe we do?) that factors in the remainder as
part of the number also?
It's
L schrieb:
It's just one more funny thing one must realize,
when comparing real numbers with some exact
real constants. After this, I will try to never
compare doubles directly, but using tricks like
above. Because, in this digital world
1 + 0.4 - 0.4 1.
My opinion:
This is ludicrous.
On 29 Oct 2007, at 11:42, Tobias Giesen wrote:
Yes, add the -CX- -X- command line options.
Or better: turn off all smart linking related options in Lazarus.
Thanks!
I did both, but somehow the error is still there. All the units
compile
fine, only the last step where the .dpr file is
Daniël Mantione schrieb:
Op Mon, 29 Oct 2007, schreef L:
Your Casio doesn't do comparisons. Just round to 10 digits before you
compare and it'll work just as fine as on your Casio.
Daniël
And some off topic trivia:
My casio says 10 + 2 digits near the model number.
Does this mean it
On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 06:36:11PM +0100, Micha Nelissen wrote:
It's possible to create a type that stores the numerator and
denominator, but then you would need to simplify to extract common
factors on every calculation, otherwise it would quickly run out of
range (Integer or whatever you
Op Mon, 29 Oct 2007, schreef L:
Same as ansistring.. it can be dangerous to hide all the intricate details
of
a
pchar/bytearray, which is what ansistring does. But ansistrings are really
useful for 'every day' use.
Wrong. A string can be represented alphadequate, as it is called;
Same as ansistring.. it can be dangerous to hide all the intricate details of
a
pchar/bytearray, which is what ansistring does. But ansistrings are really
useful for 'every day' use.
Wrong. A string can be represented alphadequate, as it is called; an
ansistring can handle any string you
Tom Verhoeff a écrit :
In fact, the GMP (GNU Multiple Precision Arithmetic Library gmplib.org)
offers this and more. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be a complete
FreePascal interface for it. Maybe it is easy to adapt (if necessary?)
the GNU Pascal interface for GMP
Daniël Mantione wrote:
And, as said before, no datastructure is adequate for storing a
mathematical real number. Not even if you have infinite memory.
Nope. If infinite memory was tangible, you would be able to store any
real number.
--
Joao Morais
Joao Morais a écrit :
Daniël Mantione wrote:
And, as said before, no datastructure is adequate for storing a
mathematical real number. Not even if you have infinite memory.
Nope. If infinite memory was tangible, you would be able to store any
real number.
How many time would it take to
39 matches
Mail list logo
