Re: [fpc-pascal] Repost: TFieldType declaration change in FPC fixes_3_2 branch
/Reposted with correct branch identifier/.
I thought that a fixes branch was only for bug fixes and not for
issuing non-backwards compatible changes. However, TFieldType in
db.pas now has 6 extra elements.
The result is that IBX no longer compiles with the fixes_3_2 branch. I
have also heard the same for zeoslib.
As far as I can see ZEOS is full of checks like:
{$IF FPC_FULLVERSION>=30100} ...
So I think that one more check:
{$IF FPC_FULLVERSION>30200}
{$DEFINE WITH_FTSHORTINT} // ftShortInt
is supported
{$DEFINE WITH_FTBYTE} // ftByte is
supported
{$DEFINE WITH_FTEXTENDED} // ftExtended
is supported
{$DEFINE WITH_FTLONGWORD} // ftLongWord is
{$ENDIF}
... is not so big problem? (I see there is already in ZEOS such check
added ...)
In IBX there you have "DefaultFieldClasses" array which is affected, right?
I agree that it is not ideal situation, but release cycle for major
versions of FPC are so long that postpone all these additions to major
releases means that users must wait years ...
L.
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Repost: TFieldType declaration change in FPC fixes_3_2 branch
On Sun, 17 Oct 2021, Tony Whyman via fpc-pascal wrote: Yes - but is that really a bug fix that justifies a non-backwards compatible change? That's up for debate of course. Probably it was needed as prerequisite for other bugfixes. Michael. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Repost: TFieldType declaration change in FPC fixes_3_2 branch
Yes - but is that really a bug fix that justifies a non-backwards compatible change? On 17/10/2021 11:09, Michael Van Canneyt via fpc-pascal wrote: On Sun, 17 Oct 2021, Tony Whyman via fpc-pascal wrote: /Reposted with correct branch identifier/. I thought that a fixes branch was only for bug fixes and not for issuing non-backwards compatible changes. However, TFieldType in db.pas now has 6 extra elements. The result is that IBX no longer compiles with the fixes_3_2 branch. I have also heard the same for zeoslib. Is the rollout of this patch to fixes_3_2 a mistake, or is there a good reason for rolling out a change that breaks other packages? Delphi compatibility fix: fcl-db: base: add some of new Delphi field types into enumeration TFieldType (ftOraTimeStamp, ftOraInterval, ftLongWord, ftShortint, ftByte, ftExtended) Michael. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Repost: TFieldType declaration change in FPC fixes_3_2 branch
On Sun, 17 Oct 2021, Tony Whyman via fpc-pascal wrote: /Reposted with correct branch identifier/. I thought that a fixes branch was only for bug fixes and not for issuing non-backwards compatible changes. However, TFieldType in db.pas now has 6 extra elements. The result is that IBX no longer compiles with the fixes_3_2 branch. I have also heard the same for zeoslib. Is the rollout of this patch to fixes_3_2 a mistake, or is there a good reason for rolling out a change that breaks other packages? Delphi compatibility fix: fcl-db: base: add some of new Delphi field types into enumeration TFieldType (ftOraTimeStamp, ftOraInterval, ftLongWord, ftShortint, ftByte, ftExtended) Michael. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
[fpc-pascal] Repost: TFieldType declaration change in FPC fixes_3_2 branch
/Reposted with correct branch identifier/. I thought that a fixes branch was only for bug fixes and not for issuing non-backwards compatible changes. However, TFieldType in db.pas now has 6 extra elements. The result is that IBX no longer compiles with the fixes_3_2 branch. I have also heard the same for zeoslib. Is the rollout of this patch to fixes_3_2 a mistake, or is there a good reason for rolling out a change that breaks other packages? Tony Whyman MWA Software ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
