Re: [fpc-pascal] Delphi may have Linux support next year
On 2016-08-30 06:15, Anthony Walter wrote: > What might be interesting is if the Delphi command line compiler could run > on AMD64 Linux, but that's yet to be seen. [I would assume your message is off-topic, so I set the reply-to of this message to FPC-Other] I doubt it will actually run on Linux, because then they would also need a debugger, which then begs for an IDE to make debugging easier. So in all likelihood, you would need a copy (and license) of Windows to develop for Linux - just like you need for OSX/iOS development. Just stick with FPC and have native tools for each platform. I see no benefit of having Delphi these days. Delphi is outshined by Free Pascal and Lazarus IDE for some years now. Regards, Graeme -- fpGUI Toolkit - a cross-platform GUI toolkit using Free Pascal http://fpgui.sourceforge.net/ My public PGP key: http://tinyurl.com/graeme-pgp ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Delphi may have Linux support next year
Big deal, we can do all that and more with Lazarus and FPC On Aug 30, 2016 12:16 AM, "Anthony Walter" wrote: > I don't know it's been posted here yet, but over at the Embarcadero > community website a new roadmap has been published. > > http://community.embarcadero.com/article/news/16418- > product-roadmap-august-2016 > > Interestingly it seems like Delphi might support Linux next year. From the > wording it would seem to indicate that the compiler will be able to target > Linux 64 bit, the RTL will work, along with some data access components. > > Translation: Delphi users who get this updated version next year will be > able to write and compile CLI programs and/or shared libraries on AMD64 > enabled Windows, OSX, and Linux computers. Don't expect a visual library or > Firemonkey support for Linux anytime soon if ever. > > What might be interesting is if the Delphi command line compiler could run > on AMD64 Linux, but that's yet to be seen. > > ___ > fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org > http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal > ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Delphi may have Linux support next year
On Di, 2016-08-30 at 11:31 -0500, Snorkl e wrote: > Big deal, we can do all that and more with Lazarus and FPC ... without waiting for "perhaps next year". Marc (using fpc/lazarus since fpc-version 1.9 or so ;) -- Marc Santhoff ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] LLVM Backend Support
2016-08-19 4:55 GMT-03:00 Jonas Maebe : > African Wild Dog wrote: > > > What is the current status of the LLVM backend support? > > "make cycle" works on my machine for Darwin/x86-64, and most test suite > failures (apart from exception handling tests if the optimisation level > is increased, see point 2 below) are related to LLVM limitations rather > than to bugs in the FPC code generator to LLVM. I have not yet committed > everything, because some changes still need to be implemented in a > cleaner way. > Thanks for the detailed explanation. I asked about it because apparently it is a good idea to adopt the LLVM as the backend for FPC compiler. This would free the FPC's core developers from the task of maintain the backend portion of the compiler, which is not a trivial task, considering the dozens of architectures and operating systems which is currently supported, and other details such as the code optimizer. Will the FPC team, somewhere in the future, adopt the LLVM as the backend on all platforms ? Best regards ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] LLVM Backend Support
Am 31.08.2016 05:12 schrieb "African Wild Dog" : > > 2016-08-19 4:55 GMT-03:00 Jonas Maebe : >> >> African Wild Dog wrote: >> >> > What is the current status of the LLVM backend support? >> >> "make cycle" works on my machine for Darwin/x86-64, and most test suite >> failures (apart from exception handling tests if the optimisation level >> is increased, see point 2 below) are related to LLVM limitations rather >> than to bugs in the FPC code generator to LLVM. I have not yet committed >> everything, because some changes still need to be implemented in a >> cleaner way. > > > Thanks for the detailed explanation. I asked about it because apparently it is a good idea to adopt the LLVM as the backend for FPC compiler. > This would free the FPC's core developers from the task of maintain the backend portion of the compiler, which is not a trivial task, considering the dozens of architectures and operating systems which is currently supported, and other details such as the code optimizer. > > Will the FPC team, somewhere in the future, adopt the LLVM as the backend on all platforms ? The LLVM backend will never completely take over, not only because LLVM doesn't support all targets that we do (M68k for example), but some portions still need our backend anyway (inline assembly for example) and also Florian *prefers* to work in the backends. Regards, Sven ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] LLVM Backend Support
On 31/08/16 05:11, African Wild Dog wrote: Thanks for the detailed explanation. I asked about it because apparently it is a good idea to adopt the LLVM as the backend for FPC compiler. This would free the FPC's core developers from the task of maintain the backend portion of the compiler, which is not a trivial task, considering the dozens of architectures and operating systems which is currently supported, and other details such as the code optimizer. The code optimizers, yes. The rest, not so much. Will the FPC team, somewhere in the future, adopt the LLVM as the backend on all platforms ? No, for various reasons: * LLVM will almost certainly never support all targets that we support (Gameboy Advance, OS/2, WinCE, ...), or at some point drop support for targets that we still support (as already happened with Mac OS X for PowerPC/PowerPC64). * the native FPC code generators require very little maintenance once written, as they are quite well insulated via abstractions from the rest of the compiler * you still need some of the hardest parts of the FPC native code generators anyway for LLVM (entry/exit code handling, parameter manager), to be able to deal with assembler routines and because LLVM does not fully abstract parameter passing * a hardware architecture seldom changes in backward-compatibility breaking ways once released, while LLVM makes no such promises. They do seem to have finally settled more or less on the binary bitcode format (even there are no guarantees, but maybe I'll add support for that after all) * LLVM changes a lot, all the time. That means a high chance of introducing regressions. I don't know how likely it would be that FPC-with-LLVM would one day be admissible to be run as part of LLVM's buildbots and automatic regression tests, but if not then it's possible that maintaining the LLVM backend may become more work than the regular code generators and optimizers combined (at least if we want to keep up with the latest LLVM versions, and not stick with a particular version for long times like most out-of-tree "consumers" of LLVM do) * most OS-specific support is in the run time library, not in the compiler. As a result, LLVM will not save much time there * our native code generators are much faster than LLVM's (even if you would neglect the overhead of FPC generating bitcode and the LLVM tool chain reading it back in), so especially while developing it may be more interesting to use our code generators Jonas ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
