On 02/01/15 14:55, Bart wrote: > On 1/2/15, Jonas Maebe <jonas.ma...@elis.ugent.be> wrote: > >> > The reason is that by design, FPC-compiled programs for Linux do not >> > depend on libc and clocale introduces a dependency on libc. It's the >> > same reason why you have to use the cthreads unit to get a functional >> > thread manager under Linux. > We need fplocale unit maybe? > I tried long time ago, but failed miserably.
It would probably also significantly increase the size of the binary. We now have an fpwidestring unit, but if you want to have the same functionality as with cwstring (including support for Japanese and Chinese character sets), it increases the size of your binary by several megabytes (or you have to supply several megabytes of code page conversion tables). As a result, I doubt it will be very popular. After just having spent 2 days debugging an issue in fcl-res that could have been avoided by just using the assembler instead of by reimplementing object writers from scratch, I'm even more strengthened in my conviction that it is a mistake trying to implement and reimplement everything just to make cross-compiling somewhat easier, or to avoid libc version compatibility problems on Linux that were common 15 years ago. Jonas _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
