Am 09.05.2012 20:19, schrieb microc...@zoho.com:
There are no binaries provided by my distribution. It's Slackware! But
the question was, was it really necessary to use such a recent glibc?
It's a matter of what the libc version happens to be on the system that
was used to build libgdb, which
Hi List.
I have discovered the following strange bug/problem.
Please check out the following program and tell me which part is right
and which is wrong,
or perhaps what i'm doing wrong in this case.
program project1;
{$mode objfpc}{$H+}
uses
math;
var
a,b: extended;
begin
if SameValu
I screwed up the quoting here, sorry. Jeff didn't write all below, I think
some of it was Mark.
On Wed, 09 May 2012 18:01:43 -0400 Jeff Wormsley wrote:
> And what, pray, is wrong with Slackware? :-)
Nothing :-) Once you Slack you never go back!
> Most of the SPARC systems around here are Debian
On Wed, 09 May 2012 18:18:59 + Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
> My main role is being a thorn in the side of the core developers when
> something stops working :-) However I've previously offered to host a
> (not very fast) system here for compilation etc., and the offer stands.
What SPARC box(es)
On Wed, 09 May 2012 19:45:11 + Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
> One thing I would stress for the OP's benefit: SPARC 2.6.0 was entirely
> able to build itself and Lazarus. It's only when I tried mixing database
> access and some heavy floating-point astronomical calculations that the
> problems beca
On Wed, 9 May 2012 21:05:56 +0200 "Ludo Brands" wrote:
> In any case, 2.6.0 is needed now to build 2.7.1. Just rebuild 2.7.1 from
> today on Solaris 10 Intel and it failed miserably with 2.4.4. That worked
> a few months ago and the 2.7.1 then build doesn't build todays 2.7.1
> neither. Only 2.6.0
On Wed, 09 May 2012 18:37:12 + Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
> microcode wrote:
> > I am not sure I understood your message. 2.6.0 SPARC isn't available
> > for download, but you suggest it as an interim release because of fixes
> > in an upcoming release that probably won't be backported. So I gu
Jonas Maebe schrieb:
>> I was able to access long paths (with many hundreds of characters)
>> in the windows API functions FindFirstFileW (with Win32_Find_DataW
>> data type) but I failed to open such files with Assign(File)/reset.
>> Are they converted to (one byte) Ansistring internally?
> So as
On 09 May 2012, at 21:46, Marco van de Voort wrote:
> In our previous episode, Jonas Maebe said:
>>> Is it (already) possible to use Unicodestrings for file paths?
>>
>> Only if your current ansi code page supports the characters used in the
>> unicodestring. There are not unicodestring overloa
On 05/09/2012 01:06 PM, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
microc...@zoho.com wrote:
There are no binaries provided by my distribution. It's Slackware!
But the
question was, was it really necessary to use such a recent glibc?
And what, pray, is wrong with Slackware? :-)
Most of the SPARC systems arou
In our previous episode, Jonas Maebe said:
> > Is it (already) possible to use Unicodestrings for file paths?
>
> Only if your current ansi code page supports the characters used in the
> unicodestring. There are not unicodestring overloads yet in the RTL.
I think Joerg means something else. The
Ludo Brands wrote:
Your question, as given unambiguously in the subject line, relates to
2.6.0. I'm telling you, equally unambiguously, that you don't
want to do
that. You might need to start off with an older binary to get
yourself
going, or you might be able to get hold of a binary for 2.6.
>
> Your question, as given unambiguously in the subject line, relates to
> 2.6.0. I'm telling you, equally unambiguously, that you don't
> want to do
> that. You might need to start off with an older binary to get
> yourself
> going, or you might be able to get hold of a binary for 2.6.0, bu
microc...@zoho.com wrote:
On Wed, 09 May 2012 16:10:06 + Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
There is a directory for Solaris SPARC but it is empty. Is it possible
to get 2.6.0 for Solaris SPARC? Thanks again.
I've got a copy that I've built and run here, but I started off with an
earlier version a
On Wed, 9 May 2012 19:02:16 +0200 (CEST) "Tomas Hajny" wrote:
> My point was that there has been no official / dedicated maintainer for
> that platform within the core team recently which is the reason why there
> are no official builds for Solaris for version 2.6.0. Mark Morgan Lloyd
> who alread
On Wed, 9 May 2012 18:44:08 +0200 Jonas Maebe wrote:
> There is no real Solaris maintainer. Pierre sometimes works on it and I
> run nightly Solaris/SPARC regression tests (for as long as I still have
> access to a Solaris/SPARC machine), but I definitely do not support the
> platform. Solaris/SPA
Tomas Hajny wrote:
On Wed, May 9, 2012 18:26, microc...@zoho.com wrote:
From: "Tomas Hajny"
Do you guys plan on releasing the 2.6.0 version on Solaris and is there
a timeframe? Do you plan on continuing to support Solaris? I would be
interested in running both the Intel and SPARC versions if t
On Wed, 09 May 2012 16:10:06 + Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
> > There is a directory for Solaris SPARC but it is empty. Is it possible
> > to get 2.6.0 for Solaris SPARC? Thanks again.
> I've got a copy that I've built and run here, but I started off with an
> earlier version and had to jump thro
microc...@zoho.com wrote:
There are no binaries provided by my distribution. It's Slackware! But the
question was, was it really necessary to use such a recent glibc?
And what, pray, is wrong with Slackware? :-)
Most of the SPARC systems around here are Debian (plus one each of
Solaris 8 and
On Wed, May 9, 2012 18:26, microc...@zoho.com wrote:
> From: "Tomas Hajny"
>
>>> Do you guys plan on releasing the 2.6.0 version on Solaris and is there
>>> a timeframe? Do you plan on continuing to support Solaris? I would be
>>> interested in running both the Intel and SPARC versions if they come
On 09 May 2012, at 18:26, microc...@zoho.com wrote:
> I didn't find a list of maintainers on the home page and I don't know how
> Free Pascal development is organized. Hopefully the maintainer will speak up
> and in the meantime I will look at the build guide you mentioned further
> on.
There i
From: "Tomas Hajny"
>> Do you guys plan on releasing the 2.6.0 version on Solaris and is there
>> a timeframe? Do you plan on continuing to support Solaris? I would be
>> interested in running both the Intel and SPARC versions if they come
>> available.
> I'm not the right one to answer this que
On 09 May 2012, at 17:46, Jürgen Hestermann wrote:
> Is it (already) possible to use Unicodestrings for file paths?
Only if your current ansi code page supports the characters used in the
unicodestring. There are not unicodestring overloads yet in the RTL.
Jonas___
microc...@zoho.com wrote:
On Wed, 9 May 2012 17:19:59 +0200
"Ludo Brands" wrote:
Hi, I was looking to try FPC but I saw the latest release
isn't available for Solaris, only 2.4something. Do you guys
plan on releasing the new version on Solaris? Do you intend
to keep supporting Solaris?
2.
Is it (already) possible to use Unicodestrings for file paths?
I was able to access long paths (with many hundreds of characters)
in the windows API functions FindFirstFileW (with Win32_Find_DataW
data type) but I failed to open such files with Assign(File)/reset.
Are they converted to (one byte)
On Wed, May 9, 2012 16:14, microc...@zoho.com wrote:
> Sorry if this is a duplicate. I sent it from my phone yesterday but it has
> not shown up yet, possibly due to the html issue.
>
> I was looking to try FPC and I downloaded the Linux version. I saw the
> latest release isn't available for Solar
On Wed, 9 May 2012 17:19:59 +0200
"Ludo Brands" wrote:
> >
> > Hi, I was looking to try FPC but I saw the latest release
> > isn't available for Solaris, only 2.4something. Do you guys
> > plan on releasing the new version on Solaris? Do you intend
> > to keep supporting Solaris?
> >
> 2.6.0
On Wed, 9 May 2012 17:19:59 +0200
"Ludo Brands" wrote:
> >
> > Hi, I was looking to try FPC but I saw the latest release
> > isn't available for Solaris, only 2.4something. Do you guys
> > plan on releasing the new version on Solaris? Do you intend
> > to keep supporting Solaris?
> >
> 2.6.0
>
> Hi, I was looking to try FPC but I saw the latest release
> isn't available for Solaris, only 2.4something. Do you guys
> plan on releasing the new version on Solaris? Do you intend
> to keep supporting Solaris?
>
2.6.0 is available for intel from
ftp://ftp.freepascal.org/pub/fpc/dist/2.6.
Sorry if this is a duplicate. I sent it from my phone yesterday but it has
not shown up yet, possibly due to the html issue.
I was looking to try FPC and I downloaded the Linux version. I saw the
latest release isn't available for Solaris.
Do you guys plan on releasing the 2.6.0 version on Solari
Hi, I was looking to try FPC but I saw the latest release isn't available for
Solaris, only 2.4something. Do you guys plan on releasing the new version on
Solaris? Do you intend to keep supporting Solaris?
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.
On 08-05-12 22:41, Koenraad Lelong wrote:
Hi,
I don't know why but now it works.
Sorry for the noise.
Regards,
Koenraad Lelong.
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
32 matches
Mail list logo
