[Lazarus] checksums for downloads

2015-07-19 Thread Marc Santhoff
Hi, since I have managed to destroy my fpc and/or lazarus installation and have to install fresh ones, i wondered: Are there chechsums available anywhere for the needed downloads - fpc, fpc sources, lazarus? I would feel mauch better, if so. Thanks in advance, Marc -- Marc Santhoff --

Re: [Lazarus] checksums for downloads

2015-07-19 Thread Martin Frb
On 19/07/2015 12:56, Marc Santhoff wrote: Hi, since I have managed to destroy my fpc and/or lazarus installation and have to install fresh ones, i wondered: Are there chechsums available anywhere for the needed downloads - fpc, fpc sources, lazarus? I would feel mauch better, if so. I am no

Re: [Lazarus] checksums for downloads

2015-07-19 Thread Martin Frb
On 19/07/2015 14:18, Martin Frb wrote: On 19/07/2015 12:56, Marc Santhoff wrote: Hi, since I have managed to destroy my fpc and/or lazarus installation and have to install fresh ones, i wondered: Are there chechsums available anywhere for the needed downloads - fpc, fpc sources, lazarus? I wo

Re: [Lazarus] checksums for downloads

2015-07-19 Thread Marc Santhoff
On So, 2015-07-19 at 14:18 +0100, Martin Frb wrote: > On 19/07/2015 12:56, Marc Santhoff wrote: > > Hi, > > > > since I have managed to destroy my fpc and/or lazarus installation and > > have to install fresh ones, i wondered: > > > > Are there chechsums available anywhere for the needed downloads

Re: [Lazarus] checksums for downloads

2015-07-19 Thread waldo kitty
On 07/19/2015 09:29 AM, Marc Santhoff wrote: On So, 2015-07-19 at 14:18 +0100, Martin Frb wrote: I am not aware of them being separately published (except for the ones on sourceforge, which are calculated by sourceforge). I think it may be only little effort to publish those sums on the websit

Re: [Lazarus] checksums for downloads

2015-07-19 Thread Marc Santhoff
On So, 2015-07-19 at 12:08 -0400, waldo kitty wrote: > On 07/19/2015 09:29 AM, Marc Santhoff wrote: > > On So, 2015-07-19 at 14:18 +0100, Martin Frb wrote: > >> I am not aware of them being separately published (except for the ones > >> on sourceforge, which are calculated by sourceforge). > > > >

[Lazarus] Using semaphores to limit thread access

2015-07-19 Thread kapibara
|Hi guys A number of threads need to access an object, but no more than three threads must access simultaneously. Thats a job for a semaphore someone said.|||I understand|that under Delphi and Windows something like this could be used: FSemaphoreHandle:= CreateSemaphore(nil, 3, 3, nil); |

Re: [Lazarus] checksums for downloads

2015-07-19 Thread Martin Frb
On 19/07/2015 14:29, Marc Santhoff wrote: Many thanks, but I'm using FreeBSD (8 and 9). I am only doing the windows builds.. How do you manage to see checksums on Sourceforge? That would be a start. Click on the (i) symbol behind the entry. You may have to scroll down, after you clicked, be

[Lazarus] gdb version for use with lazarus

2015-07-19 Thread Marc Santhoff
Hi, still in the reconstruction process: Which version of gdb is requiered at least for us with lazarus on freebsd with fpc 2.6.4? I'm using nthe systems gdb which does not seem to suffice: > gdb --version GNU gdb 6.1.1 [FreeBSD] Lazarus is from today, 1.4.2. TIA, Marc -- Marc Santhoff

Re: [Lazarus] gdb version for use with lazarus

2015-07-19 Thread leledumbo
> GNU gdb 6.1.1 [FreeBSD] Wow! That's about 11 years ago :o I don't know what's the lower bound, but 7.1-7.2 is found to be working. I'm on a rolling release distro which always provides latest GDB (7.9.1 atm) and it works quite fine (well, there are hiccups here and there, but only in certain cor

Re: [Lazarus] Using semaphores to limit thread access

2015-07-19 Thread Sven Barth
Am 19.07.2015 18:33 schrieb "kapibara" : > > Hi guys > > A number of threads need to access an object, but no more than three threads must access simultaneously. > > Thats a job for a semaphore someone said. I understand that under Delphi and Windows something like this could be used: > > FSemaphor

Re: [Lazarus] gdb version for use with lazarus

2015-07-19 Thread Martin Frb
On 19/07/2015 18:16, Marc Santhoff wrote: Hi, still in the reconstruction process: Which version of gdb is requiered at least for us with lazarus on freebsd with fpc 2.6.4? I'm using nthe systems gdb which does not seem to suffice: > gdb --version GNU gdb 6.1.1 [FreeBSD] Lazarus is from to

Re: [Lazarus] gdb version for use with lazarus

2015-07-19 Thread Graeme Geldenhuys
On 2015-07-19 18:16, Marc Santhoff wrote: > > gdb --version > GNU gdb 6.1.1 [FreeBSD] Yeah, don't use that one. FreeBSD includes that one by default because of licensing issues with newer versions. Use ports and install a later GDB (/usr/ports/devel/gdb). I have gdb 7.8.1 installed here on FreeBS

Re: [Lazarus] gdb version for use with lazarus

2015-07-19 Thread Graeme Geldenhuys
On 2015-07-19 18:16, Marc Santhoff wrote: > > gdb --version > GNU gdb 6.1.1 [FreeBSD] I forgot to mention in my previous reply, when you install a later GDB via ports, they use a different executable name so you can have multiple versions installed. /usr/bin/gdb <-- v6.6 /usr

Re: [Lazarus] gdb version for use with lazarus

2015-07-19 Thread Marc Santhoff
On Mo, 2015-07-20 at 00:08 +0100, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote: > On 2015-07-19 18:16, Marc Santhoff wrote: > > > gdb --version > > GNU gdb 6.1.1 [FreeBSD] > > I forgot to mention in my previous reply, when you install a later GDB > via ports, they use a different executable name so you can have multi

Re: [Lazarus] gdb version for use with lazarus

2015-07-19 Thread Marc Santhoff
On So, 2015-07-19 at 23:40 +0100, Martin Frb wrote: > On 19/07/2015 18:16, Marc Santhoff wrote: > > Hi, > > > > still in the reconstruction process: > > > > Which version of gdb is requiered at least for us with lazarus on > > freebsd with fpc 2.6.4? > > > > I'm using nthe systems gdb which does no

Re: [Lazarus] gdb version for use with lazarus

2015-07-19 Thread Martin Frb
On 20/07/2015 00:44, Marc Santhoff wrote: Since i really shot down my installation I cannot tell which gdb has been used lastly, but lazarus was version 1.2.0 and that combination worked - well somehow at least. Well there were some changes in the startup of the debug session You can try (in th