[fpc-pascal] 2.6.0 for Solaris?

[microcode]

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.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal

[fpc-pascal] 2.6.0 for Solaris? And other questions

[microcode]

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 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.

Another question is on 2.6.0 on Linux. I cannot run the fp ide because I
have glibc 2.9. The error message I get says

fp: /lib64/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.14' not found (required by fp)

That is really a recent version! Even the latest Slackware from 1 year ago
only has glibc 2.13. Is this really needed or can it be built against my
version of glibc?

I have various other stuff going wrong when trying to build some of the
samples like the fpc compiler not being able to find certain libraries.
Should I post the error messages here or should I look for a bug tracker? I
am not sure anything is a bug since I am new to all this. I installed into
my home directory and am using all the defaults.

Thank you.

___
fpc-pascal maillist  -  fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal

Re: RE : [fpc-pascal] 2.6.0 for Solaris?

[microcode]

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 is available for intel from
> ftp://ftp.freepascal.org/pub/fpc/dist/2.6.0/i386-solaris/fpc-2.6.0.i386-sola
> ris.tar.gz and
> ftp://ftp.freepascal.org/pub/fpc/dist/2.6.0/x86_64-solaris/fpc-2.6.0.x86_64-
> solaris.tar.gz
> 
> Ludo
> 

Thanks a lot, I will try them out.

Do you happen to know why they aren't shown from the downloads page on 
freepascal.org?

___
fpc-pascal maillist  -  fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal

Re: RE : [fpc-pascal] 2.6.0 for Solaris?

[microcode]

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 is available for intel from
> ftp://ftp.freepascal.org/pub/fpc/dist/2.6.0/i386-solaris/fpc-2.6.0.i386-sola
> ris.tar.gz and
> ftp://ftp.freepascal.org/pub/fpc/dist/2.6.0/x86_64-solaris/fpc-2.6.0.x86_64-
> solaris.tar.gz
> 
> Ludo
> 

There is a directory for Solaris SPARC but it is empty. Is it possible to
get 2.6.0 for Solaris SPARC? Thanks again.

___
fpc-pascal maillist  -  fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal

[fpc-pascal] Subject: Re: 2.6.0 for Solaris? And other questions

[microcode]

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 question but I believe that this
> depends mainly on availability of a maintainer for this operating system.
> You may try building the compiler (and RTL) for that platform and it may
> work well for you, but you may encounter some issues.

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. 


>> Another question is on 2.6.0 on Linux. I cannot run the fp ide because I
>> have glibc 2.9. The error message I get says 
>> fp: /lib64/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.14' not found (required by fp)
>>
>> That is really a recent version! Even the latest Slackware from 1 year
>> ago only has glibc 2.13. Is this really needed or can it be built against
>> my version of glibc?

> It should be possible to build against your version of glibc, but you'll
> probably have to do it yourself (or use FPC binaries provided by your
> distribution).

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?

> Search for 'buildfaq.pdf' in order to learn more on how to build FPC
> yourself. Make sure to also have libgdb available in the right place in
> order to have debugging support available in the fp ide (e.g. by using
> one of precompiled versions available in the "contrib" section of our FTP
> server).

Thanks.

>> I have various other stuff going wrong when trying to build some of the
>> samples like the fpc compiler not being able to find certain libraries.
>> Should I post the error messages here or should I look for a bug tracker?

> This depends on what the 'certain libraries' are. If you try to compile
> samples linking to external (3rd party) libraries, this is no fpc bug -
> you need to make sure to have development packages of the respective 3rd
> party libraries installed using tools appropriate for your distribution
> first. 

I believe they are fpc libraries but I will have to check again. Do you
expect that all of the examples will normally build on Linux without errors
or is it normal to have some problems?

Thank you.

___
fpc-pascal maillist  -  fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal

[fpc-pascal] Re: 2.6.0 for Solaris?

[microcode]

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 through a few hoops to get it installed. 
> 
> I strongly recommend using 2.6 as an interim release on SPARC, since
> there were code-generation bugs that weren't fixed until a few months
> ago- the fixes are in 2.7.1 but haven't been backported. 

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 guess you mean
even if I could get 2.6.0 built I should realize when 2.7.something comes
out that's the version I should use? If so, no problem. I will go over the
buildfaq suggested earlier and see what I can do, possibly with the 2.7.1
you mentioned.

I have no particular need for 2.6.0, I just normally try to get the stable
release of whatever new thing I decide to try out and I understood from the
website 2.6.0 is the one I should use.

Thanks.




___
fpc-pascal maillist  -  fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal

[fpc-pascal] Re: 2.6.0 for Solaris? And other questions

[microcode]

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/SPARC is on life support, as far as I am concerned: I
> try to make sure that port doesn't get new bugs, but I don't work on
> fixing any existing bugs in it. I don't know to what extent Pierre wants
> to support Solaris/i386 and Solaris/x86-64.

Thanks, that is important to know. My main use would be on Solaris,
possibly the SPARC version so if the project doesn't view that platform as
having a future I would rather know now.

> > 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 is simply someone's personal machine. 

Ok, but if that is what happened I would expect a lot of people not to be
able to run fp except maybe Fedora 16 or Gentoo users who always have the
latest stuff. I guess I am wrong though or you would already know about it.
Maybe it would be better to build on a non-bleeding edge system so people
with older distros and pieces could still run everything? I very seldom
upgrade but maybe everybody else does. I try to find a good working setup
and then don't change it much. That's kind of why I was asking about 2.6.0
since it is the current release. I was planning on staying on that until I
had a really good reason not to.

> > I believe they are fpc libraries but I will have to check again. Do you
> > expect that all of the examples will normally build on Linux without
> > errors or is it normal to have some problems? 

> The examples are probably one of the worst maintained parts of the
> distribution, because almost nobody uses them. That said, some of them
> certainly will require the development versions of certain libraries to
> be installed (e.g., some of them use ncurses, so you'll need to have the
> development package of ncurses to be installed to compile them).

Thanks for the info here also. I have ncurses and almost every possible
development tool and toolkit installed. I am careful not to randomly
install non-development libraries though. If the examples are not
maintained or used then I'll just do the best I can. I don't have any
experience with Pascal so I was glad to see some sample code.

___
fpc-pascal maillist  -  fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal

[fpc-pascal] Re: 2.6.0 for Solaris? And other questions

[microcode]

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 already responded to your e-mail probably has the most experience
> with these targets at the moment.

Yeah I checked and other platforms had people listed as maintainers. Uh oh!

> > 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?

> I'm not sure what's the supposed meaning of "It's Slackware!" in your
> e-mail. We do not actively track which Linux distributions support FPC
> directly. 

Oh sorry, I thought everybody knew about Slackware since it is the oldest
Linux distro still being maintained. It is mostly about building everything
you want yourself but has no package management and no repo. It comes with
a ton of development tools but most apps are not there. They *should* put
Free Pascal on there though!

> Anyway, the particular glibc version was probably selected by the ld
> linker when compiling the binaries on the builder's machine. We cannot
> guarantee compatibility of the provided binaries with specific Linux
> distributions.

Understood but it seems like it would be good to intentionally not use
bleeding-edge setups to build in prereqs that people might not have, unless
you actually need them. So my question was really about whether FPC could
run with my older glibc or whether you really needed the latest. 

> Our _compiler_ does not use glibc at all on Linux - the main reason being
> exactly the fact that it's very difficult to ensure compatibility with
> different versions used by different distributions.

Yeah I noticed that, the compiler works great. Well done.

> The good point for you out of that is that you should be able to use the
> distributed compiler for rebuilding the IDE on your own machine and
> linking to the glibc version available there.

Yes, I'll try it. I got the buildfaq and will go over it next week.

> (which may or may not be due to some bug in our installer, but that is
> hard to assess without more specific information). Please check what's
> going on there and possibly see our FAQ for common issues.

I realize that. That's why I asked whether I should post here. I just
didn't want to start blasting the list with a bunch of error messages for
stuff you already know doesn't work or nobody cares about. I will go over
the FAQ and get more info obviously. Thanks for the help guys.


___
fpc-pascal maillist  -  fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal

[fpc-pascal] Re: 2.6.0 for Solaris?

[microcode]

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 guess
> > you mean even if I could get 2.6.0 built I should realize when
> > 2.7.something comes out that's the version I should use? If so, no
> > problem. I will go over the buildfaq suggested earlier and see what I
> > can do, possibly with the 2.7.1 you mentioned.

> 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, but having
> done that, in the case of SPARC, you want to get onto 2.7.1 rather than
> relying on 2.6.0's correctness.

Thanks, that's what I understood. As I said, I simply intend to get the
current stable release rather than a development version. If 2.7.1 is more
"stable" than 2.6.0 I will attempt to build it. I thought I explained that
in the first paragraph you quoted above. And as I said in the next
paragraph you quoted:

> > I have no particular need for 2.6.0, I just normally try to get the
> > stable release of whatever new thing I decide to try out and I
> > understood from the website 2.6.0 is the one I should use.

> You are, of course, free to ignore my advice.

Whoa where is this coming from? I said thanks several times in my posts. I
haven't ignored anything, I simply didn't understand things. The website
has a note that says:

"FPC 2.6.0 has been released! 2.6.0 is a major new version, which adds many
post-Delphi 7 language features and adds or improves the support for
various platforms."

So naturally it sounded like that's what I should get. You have explained
that is not necessarily so for SPARC, so I plan to follow your suggestions.

Thanks again.

___
fpc-pascal maillist  -  fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal

[fpc-pascal] Re: 2.6.0 for Solaris?

[microcode]

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 builds 2.7.1 correctly.

Thanks, this is good info. I will have to build it in steps then.

> But I fully agree: don't do more on Solaris with 2.6.0 than building
> 2.7.1.

Understood and thanks to you and Mark

___
fpc-pascal maillist  -  fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal

[fpc-pascal] Re: 2.6.0 for Solaris?

[microcode]

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 became apparent.

Noted. Thanks again, Mark.

___
fpc-pascal maillist  -  fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal

[fpc-pascal] Re: 2.6.0 for Solaris?

[microcode]

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) do you have? I may be able to host Solaris development
systems if needed although the SPARC stuff would have to be scheduled since
I cannot leave them on all the time because of the huge noise and heat
factor. The Intel box is on most of the time.

> His point was that Slackware has a far more limited range of binaries and
> libraries than do more popular distreaux such as Debian/Ubuntu, but it
> has its uses.

Right you are.

> >Anyway, the particular glibc version was probably selected by the ld
> >linker when compiling the binaries on the builder's machine.

> I'll check 2.7.1 on SPARC Solaris 8, 10 and Slackware 12 over the next
> few days. I don't anticipate any problems, and in the interest of getting
> the OP (who hasn't provided us with a more genteel handle) going I could
> mail or FTP him tarballs as appropriate. 

If 2.6.0 is ok for Linux that is good enough for me as far as Slackware
goes. I may try to rebuild against my glibc or just forget about it on
Linux and concentrate on Solaris since I prefer to work on Solaris anyway.

I appreciate your offer for packages but since you or somebody else has
already pointed me to the buildfaq, I'll try this on my own and when I get
stuck I'll email the list again. Thanks again for all the help.


___
fpc-pascal maillist  -  fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal

[fpc-pascal] Re: 2.6.0 for Solaris? And other questions

[microcode]

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 (plus one each of 
> Solaris 8 and 10), but I've got Slackware 12 IIRC on an E4500 since 
> the Debian installer wouldn't work. Good machine for testing 
> multithreaded stuff on account of the number of CPUs.

Hah! I didn't even think of that. I've been thinking it would be nice to
have a SPARC port of Slackware but it hasn't been maintained.

How many sockets do you have on your E4500?

> I don't think the OP meant he was running Slackware on Sun hardware,
> although maybe he (or she, I suppose) was. It seemed to me there were
> two mostly unrelated questions: 1) How to get FPC on Solaris? and 2) Why
> doesn't FPC work on his version of Slackware Linux.

Right. At the beginning I just wanted FPC for my Solaris boxes. Since the
current stable version wasn't available for Solaris or at least so I
thought until Ludo pointed me to the Intel versions, I decided to try it on
Linux. Then I found fp doesn't work on my Linux setup because of not having
a very recent glibc.

But yes, I'm hoping to get FPC working on Solaris SPARC now that I
have the copy for Solaris Intel. Thanks to all.


___
fpc-pascal maillist  -  fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal

[fpc-pascal] Re: 2.6.0 for Solaris? And other questions

[microcode]

Thu, 10 May 2012 08:45:14 +0200 Sven Barth wrote

> The text mode IDE "fp" is not used that much on Unix based systems thus
> such problems regarding to recent/old libraries are not detected that
> easily.

That would explain it! But I saw fp once and I loved it, very Borland Turbo!

> Most users use a graphical IDE like Lazarus:
> http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/ 

Thanks, I'll look. But I will probably be just as happy or happier with fp.


___
fpc-pascal maillist  -  fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal

[fpc-pascal] Re: 2.6.0 for Solaris?

[microcode]

On Thu, 10 May 2012 07:27:22 + Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:

> microcode wrote:

> > What SPARC box(es) do you have? I may be able to host Solaris
> > development systems if needed although the SPARC stuff would have to be
> > scheduled since I cannot leave them on all the time because of the huge
> > noise and heat factor. The Intel box is on most of the time.

> I've got a range here: mostly U60 running "in anger", a U80, E4500, U10s,
> a U1, plus some museum pieces I can't find an OS for. I'm also one of
> very few people who've got an SS1000E running Linux SMP, but that's not a
> recent distro and because of library versions (**) I'm not sure what if
> any version of FPC I could get running on it.

The E4500s are monsters, aren't they? I'd like to have one but I'm out of
space. I'd like an Ultra 80 as well. I could find a spot for one of those.

I've got a stack of Sun Fire 210s and 440s. They're very nice but they're
in various states of needing odds and ends and I don't have much disk
capacity but plenty for development machines. The 210s are two bangers and
are fast enough for building large apps in a reasonable timeframe. The 440s
are slow but they're unstoppable, they run like a freight train, nothing
bothers them. I'm hoping to get a pile of RAM but so far all the promises
haven't panned out. I have a bad UPS and when I get that fixed I'll have
more machines available to come online whenever needed.

> ** When a program is built, the (Linux) linker puts the actual filenames
> of the .so files it expects to find in the binary- not the names of any
> symlinks. That means that once you've built a binary using standard
> parameters, that binary /requires/ the same collection of .so versions
> that was on the development system 

Right you are. Before reading your post I built glibc-2.14 and tried fp
again but no joy..

>. ... I managed to get around that to backport FPC from Solaris 10 to 8
>but in general I think it's better to start off with a version that runs
>and work forwards. 

Agreed.

> I wholeheartedly agree that power, and in the Summer heat, is a massive
> problem. There's only so much we can afford, and even with substantial
> air conditioning things can get pretty unpleasant in my workroom and the
> adjacent machineroom. That's why I'm only able to offer U10s as always-up
> systems, Vincent used one of those for Lazarus two or three years ago and
> I've tried to test both FPC and Lazarus on Linux and Solaris fairly
> regularly since. 

Sun makes awfully nice boxes and Solaris is a very nice development
platform. I hope the guys will keep FPC going on Solaris. There are many
Solaris 10 on Sun fans.

> > I appreciate your offer for packages but since you or somebody else has
> > already pointed me to the buildfaq, I'll try this on my own and when I
> > get stuck I'll email the list again. Thanks again for all the help.

> You might find it useful to go to the Mantis bug tracker and look at the
> SPARC-related bugs I've reported- use "View Issues", expand "Search",
> select "Mark Morgan Lloyd" from "Reporter" then "Use Filter". You might
> in particular need http://mantis.freepascal.org/view.php?id=18271 when
> getting your initial FPC binary installed on Solaris 10. 

Thanks for the info.


> When you get to compiling, you might find it necessary to use a command
> line like this: 
>
> make NOGDB=1 OPT='-O- -gl'
>
> What that does is tell it to not try to use the optional libgdb in the fp
> text-mode IDE, and it disables optimisation in the compiler binary (/not/
> the compiler's ability to apply optimisation) so that if something goes
> wrong you can get a useful backtrace.

Thanks.


> On Debian, you'll need [checks] build-essential, gdb, libgpmg1-dev, and
> some combination of libncurses5-dev and libncursesw5-dev. If you get as
> far as building Lazarus use trunk (on SPARC) and treat libgtk2.0-dev and
> possibly libqt4pas-dev as prerequisites, if those aren't available (e.g.
> on Slackware) I suggest we continue on the Lazarus mailing list. 

I don't think I'll spend any further time looking at Linux, as the
Slackware copy of 2.6.0 seems to work for a few small samples. If I can't
get fp built on Solaris SPARC or if it doesn't work on Solaris Intel (will
check that next week) then I'll think about what to do next, probably just
live with Emacs. If I get bored and my list of things to do ever gets small
enough I'll look at rebuilding 2.6.0 Linux under 2.6.0 with my glibc.

___
fpc-pascal maillist  -  fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal

[fpc-pascal] Re: 2.6.0 for Solaris?

[microcode]

On Thu, 10 May 2012 07:32:47 + Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:

> > How many sockets do you have on your E4500?
>
> 12, i.e. space for an I/O card and internal discs for booting.

Woohoo! That's a lot of CPUs. I'll bet you can heat your home with that in
the winter.

> I prefer the SS1000 architecture, where each of the eight cards is
> identical so you can have 16x CPUs plus full I/O... in addition being a
> Xerox PARC design it has a certain pedigree ;-) 

I'm not familiar with that one.

___
fpc-pascal maillist  -  fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal

[fpc-pascal] Re: 2.6.0 for Solaris?

[microcode]

On Thu, 10 May 2012 14:07:47 +0200 (CEST) "Tomas Hajny" wrote:

> On Thu, May 10, 2012 13:22, microcode wrote:

> > Sun makes awfully nice boxes and Solaris is a very nice development
> > platform. I hope the guys will keep FPC going on Solaris. There are
> > many Solaris 10 on Sun fans.

>
> FPC support of individual platforms depends on availability of volunteers
> interested and capable of supporting these platforms. FPC can target
> really many platforms nowadays, but this increasing number cannot be
> supported with constant number of developers. Someone from the Sun fans
> has to step in, otherwise the support cannot be guaranteed in the long
> term. 

Yeah, that's obvious. I'm sure anybody who was capable would help. All I
can offer at this point is development systems but that doesn't seem to be
the problem. How much platform dependent code is there? I would think if
the main product works on i386 or AMD64 for example then there isn't much
to do except build on the other targets? 

Is it a matter of not having developers for the specific platform or not
having anybody to build it for a specific platform?



___
fpc-pascal maillist  -  fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal

[fpc-pascal] Re: 2.6.0 for Solaris?

[microcode]

On Thu, 10 May 2012 17:14:45 + Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:

> You might find the fpc-devel mailing list interesting, although I think
> that everybody would admit that there is a shortage of documentation for
> the entrails of the compiler. 

Thanks, I'm subscribed but haven't seen any messages yet.

> You might also find looking at the fpcsrc/compiler and fpcsrc/rtl trees
> in the source interesting, noting in particular the way that the latter
> at least /attempts/ to separate OS- and CPU-specific code.

Thanks, I'll have a look later on.

___
fpc-pascal maillist  -  fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal

[fpc-pascal] Re: 2.6.0 for Solaris?

[microcode]

On Fri, 11 May 2012 13:59:42 +0200 Sven Barth wrote:

> Am 11.05.2012 11:29, schrieb microcode
>> On Thu, 10 May 2012 17:14:45 + Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
>>
>>> You might find the fpc-devel mailing list interesting, although I think
>>> that everybody would admit that there is a shortage of documentation for
>>> the entrails of the compiler.
>>>
>> Thanks, I'm subscribed but haven't seen any messages yet.
>>
> That's because there wasn't any since the 7th ;)

Thanks Sven :-)

___
fpc-pascal maillist  -  fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal

[fpc-pascal] You can probably ignore this

[microcode]

It seems I have to post twice or nothing shows up to the list!

___
fpc-pascal maillist  -  fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal

Re: [fpc-pascal] Re: 2.6.0 for Solaris? And other questions [one resolved]

[microcode]

On Tue, 22 May 2012 10:29:28 +0200 Sven Barth 
wrote:

> This might be, because you compiled it without a libgdb which in turn is
> the one who links dynamically to libc. Most FPC applications (if they
> don't use threads or a WideString manager) don't require libc and thus
> don't need to link to it (which AFAIK is also the case for the IDE if it
> doesn't link to libgdb). 

That's a good explanation, thank you. I would like to have the debugger
support. 

I'm planning to go through the build again a few times for various reasons
including I want to get a current copy on Solaris SPARC. I didn't get (all)
the units built and there are some other minor annoyances in the way it
worked out (no symlink from fpc to the ppcx module) and if it doesn't go
like you said I'll post back to the list.

___
fpc-pascal maillist  -  fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal

Re: [fpc-pascal] Re: 2.6.0 for Solaris? And other questions [one resolved]

[microcode]

Thanks Mark. I haven't gotten to my SPARC boxes yet. Since I already had a copy 
of 2.6.0 built on my Linux box I was playing around with building there first. 

-Original Message-
From: Mark Morgan Lloyd 
Sender: fpc-pascal-boun...@lists.freepascal.org
Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 09:05:55 
To: 
Reply-To: FPC-Pascal users discussions 
Subject: Re: [fpc-pascal] Re: 2.6.0 for Solaris? And other questions [one
resolved]

microc...@zoho.com wrote:
> On Tue, 22 May 2012 10:29:28 +0200 Sven Barth 
> wrote:
> 
>> This might be, because you compiled it without a libgdb which in turn is
>> the one who links dynamically to libc. Most FPC applications (if they
>> don't use threads or a WideString manager) don't require libc and thus
>> don't need to link to it (which AFAIK is also the case for the IDE if it
>> doesn't link to libgdb). 
> 
> That's a good explanation, thank you. I would like to have the debugger
> support. 

That will require that you can find a precompiled libgdb- preferably a 
version that's already supported by the options in gdbint.pp. Or build 
one from source (which I've done on several systems).

I've just checked my SPARC Solaris 10 and I've not gone to the trouble: 
fp was built without gdblib.

> I'm planning to go through the build again a few times for various reasons
> including I want to get a current copy on Solaris SPARC. I didn't get (all)
> the units built and there are some other minor annoyances in the way it
> worked out (no symlink from fpc to the ppcx module) and if it doesn't go
> like you said I'll post back to the list.

You normally have to set up the ppc symlink manually, irrespective or 
platform. I usually use two stages, e.g. ppcsparc -> ppcsparc-2.4.4 and 
ppcsparc-2.4.4 -> /usr/local/lib/fpc/2.4.4/ppcsparc, and in cases where 
I'm e.g. running Lazarus I tell it to use the "one in the middle" i.e. 
ppcsparc-2.4.4.

-- 
Mark Morgan Lloyd
markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk

[Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues]
___
fpc-pascal maillist  -  fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
___
fpc-pascal maillist  -  fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal

Re: [fpc-pascal] Re: Get all caller adresses of a given function/procedure before executing

[microcode]

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:20:34AM +0200, Reinier Olislagers wrote:
> On 15-8-2012 10:08, Rainer Stratmann wrote:
> > Am Wednesday 15 August 2012 09:59:00 schrieb Lukasz Sokol:
> >> On 15/08/2012 08:33, Rainer Stratmann wrote:
> >>> Am Wednesday 15 August 2012 03:52:00 schrieb waldo kitty:
>  the loading code simply
>  chooses the proper po file and then loads the strings into an array or
>  whatever using the same variables which are used everywhere no matter
>  what language their contents are written in...
> >>>
> >>> Do you need a separate pascal identifier for each snippet?
> >>>
>  i must still be missing something :?
> >>
> >> No with (dx)gettext you don't need pascal identifiers for every string.
> >> And the translating function is _():string;
> >> So all you do is writeln(_('snippet1'));, to follow your convention.
> >>
> >> So it more or less uses the same idea as you are trying to replicate.
> >>
> > Yes, that is possible as I understand it so far.
> > I did not know (dx)gettext before so replication is may not the right word.
> Yes, it is. Replication is doing the same thing twice, regardless of the
> reasons/knowledge behind that fact.

I'm not sure about that since replication isn't really a word, although it
has crept into the English language. I look at it from a results POV rather
from an action POV. Replication is about producing copies of the same
result. You can do a similar action multiple times (duplication) and produce
a dissimilar result. That wouldn't be replicating anything, it would just be
a duplication of effort.

>From a database POV (which is how I know what little I know about
replication since I was involved in a project to do this in the early 1990s
before the whole db replication thing got so commonplace) the word
replication means not that anything was done more than once, but that the
one result was propagated to multiple places. So it seems to me replication
is about multiple result instances, not multiple action instances.

-- 
_ _  
._ _ _ <_> ___  _ _  ___  ___  ___  _| | ___ 
| ' ' || |/ | '| '_>/ . \/ | '/ . \/ . |/ ._>
|_|_|_||_|\_|_.|_|  \___/\_|_.\___/\___|\___.
 

___
fpc-pascal maillist  -  fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal

[fpc-pascal] Malformed email messages

[microcode]

Is anybody else receiving mailformed emails from the list? 

I've received several, most or all from Marco, with all with most of the
headers appearing as text since there is an extra blank line between the
X-Mailer header and the previous ones.



On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:29:15 +0200 (CEST)
 wrote:

> X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL125 (25)]
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
> Message-Id: <20120816122915.c55193f...@toad.stack.nl>
> From: mar...@stack.nl (Marco van de Voort)
> X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
> X-BeenThere: fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
> X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
> Precedence: list
> Reply-To: FPC-Pascal users discussions 
> List-Id: FPC-Pascal users discussions 
> List-Unsubscribe:
> ,
> 
> List-Archive:  List-Post:
>  List-Help:
> 
> List-Subscribe:
> ,
> 
> Sender: fpc-pascal-boun...@lists.freepascal.org Errors-To:
> fpc-pascal-boun...@lists.freepascal.org X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using
> ClamSMTP
> 
> In our previous episode, Rainer Stratmann said:
> > > And let's not forget: if we choose a reasonable default library name,
> > > 99% of all problems fall away by themselves, and the component will
> > > not be needed in the first place; Just for special cases will you
> > > need it.
> > 
> > I did not follow the thread, but what about searching a 
> > filename 'otherlibrarynames.txt' and if this file is existing then the 
> > program looks into this file for other librarynames instead of the
> > default names.
> 
> If we would depend on customer configuration, we might as well have them
> create a symlink.
> ___
> fpc-pascal maillist  -  fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
> http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal

___
fpc-pascal maillist  -  fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal

Re: OT: Re: [fpc-pascal] Malformed email messages

[microcode]

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 01:15:09PM +, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
> microc...@zoho.com wrote:
> >Is anybody else receiving mailformed emails from the list?
> >
> >I've received several, most or all from Marco, with all with most of the
> >headers appearing as text since there is an extra blank line between the
> >X-Mailer header and the previous ones.
> >
> >
> >
> >On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:29:15 +0200 (CEST)
> > wrote:
> 
> I don't see any problem in the message here, and any message that is
> even slightly suspect gets rejected by our gateway- I'll fix that
> sometime.
> 
> I note that the headers you quote include a few X- headers that I
> don't see here:
> 
> > X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
> > X-BeenThere: fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
> > X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
> > X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP

Well spotted. I don't know if zoho is using that or not. I usually turn off
any AV if there is an option, I'll check again.

> I can't remember whether our gateway is explicitly rejecting those
> but in any event I think that repeated header is suspect. Is your
> ISP doing extra scanning, and messing things up?

As much as I would like to be able to blame then, my ISP is off the hook this
time (pun intended) because the problem is not appearing on my ISP email 
account,
it's specific to this list and so far mostly or only from emails from Marco,
I'll have to double check, and I do have other friends using Elm on this and
other email accounts so I don't think that particular MUA is the problem
either. Not sure what triggers it.

Thanks for the help and sorry to everyone for the off-topic post. If I am
the only one seeing it I'll go from there.

-- 
_ _  
._ _ _ <_> ___  _ _  ___  ___  ___  _| | ___ 
| ' ' || |/ | '| '_>/ . \/ | '/ . \/ . |/ ._>
|_|_|_||_|\_|_.|_|  \___/\_|_.\___/\___|\___.
 

___
fpc-pascal maillist  -  fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal

Re: OT: Re: [fpc-pascal] Malformed email messages

[microcode]

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 03:20:15PM +, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
> microc...@zoho.com wrote:
> 
> >>I note that the headers you quote include a few X- headers that I
> >>don't see here:
> >>
> >>>X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
> >>>X-BeenThere: fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
> >>>X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
> >>>X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
> >
> >Well spotted. I don't know if zoho is using that or not. I usually turn off
> >any AV if there is an option, I'll check again.
> 
> I wasn't necessarily saying that they were added en route to you,
> only that I think our code is dropping at least some. As a specific
> example, that X-Mailman-Version header must be originating at the
> list end.

Yes, agreed.

I should have been more specific. It looks to me there is a problem with my
mail provider I use for this and other lists, but I only realized what it is
after reading your post. The line break in inserted after their AV message. 
I don't know whether their AV is tripping over ClamAV or if it's some other
error but it does seem to be in their AV code.

Since then I also received a mangled post from Ludo. So it's happening somewhat
frequently and *seems* to be related to this list but may also be caused by
something at zoho. I reported the issue to them after your email since I
have no option to turn off their virus scanning on my account with them.

> Anybody: does any computer close to the list server use ClamAV?

Good question. Thanks again, Mark.

-- 
_ _  
._ _ _ <_> ___  _ _  ___  ___  ___  _| | ___ 
| ' ' || |/ | '| '_>/ . \/ | '/ . \/ . |/ ._>
|_|_|_||_|\_|_.|_|  \___/\_|_.\___/\___|\___.
 

___
fpc-pascal maillist  -  fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal

Re: [fpc-pascal] Pathscale: alternative debugger on Linux?

[microcode]

"Starting at $1795"
Intel/AMD only.
Nope!
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 06:20:29PM +0100, Reinier Olislagers wrote: > Has anybody tried the Pathscale debugger on Linux x64/FreeBSD? >  > I haven't myself, just heard that they open sourced their compiler suite. >  > A download page seems to be here: > http://www.pathscale.com/ekopath-compiler-suite >  > Regards, > Reinier
--  _ _   ._ _ _ <_> ___  _ _  ___  ___  ___  _| | ___  | ' ' || |/ | '| '_>/ . \/ | '/ . \/ . |/ ._> |_|_|_||_|\_|_.|_|  \___/\_|_.\___/\___|\___.

___
fpc-pascal maillist  -  fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal

Re: [fpc-pascal] Pathscale: alternative debugger on Linux?

[microcode]

On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 07:57:09PM +0100, Jonas Maebe wrote: >  > On 10 Nov 2012, at 19:38, microc...@zoho.com wrote: >  > > On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 06:20:29PM +0100, Reinier Olislagers wrote: > >> Has anybody tried the Pathscale debugger on Linux x64/FreeBSD? > >>  > >> I haven't myself, just heard that they open sourced their compiler suite. > >>  > >> A download page seems to be here: > >> http://www.pathscale.com/ekopath-compiler-suite > >  > > "Starting at $1795" >  > That's if you want a supported official release. The page linked above > offers a free download of a nightly snapshot.
I saw that, but I did not understand whether the license agreement linked off the main page (177K PDF) also applies to the nightly release. That license agreement seems to say you can only use it for 20 days. Until they come out and say it, I have to ASSume there isn't any version available that you're allowed to use however/whenever you want. Looks like a regular sales trial to me. It would be nice if they were more clear about their intentions. For example, Intel does have developer (free) licenses for their Linux toolchains given you're not using them for commercial use. 
--  _ _   ._ _ _ <_> ___  _ _  ___  ___  ___  _| | ___  | ' ' || |/ | '| '_>/ . \/ | '/ . \/ . |/ ._> |_|_|_||_|\_|_.|_|  \___/\_|_.\___/\___|\___.

___
fpc-pascal maillist  -  fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal

Re: [fpc-pascal] Basically on the right track?

[microcode]

On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 11:23:42AM +, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
> Patrick wrote:
> 
> >I fell in love with Ada about 14 months ago. Including the
> >cardboard box, i now have 53lbs of Ada books(A few still to read),
> >I am planning on diving into Pascal in this way too and  I want to
> >mix Ada and Pascal.
> 
> Like a number of other people around here, I've used Modula-2
> extensively in the past. I've also done a bit of selling and
> supporting for Ada, back in the days when there weren't any full
> implementations that ran on PCs.
> 
>   Realistically, Ada and Modula-x are dead.

You should try telling that to Irvine Compiler Corp., Aonix, Green Hills,
Adacore, RR, IBM, and the other companies who are still developing and
selling their Ada toolchains ;-) "Reports of the death of Ada have been
greatly exaggerated!"

> Just about everybody agrees that Ada and Modula-2 were praiseworthy
> in avoiding Pascal's "dangling else" problem, and some would argue
> that Pascal implementations could usefully have a switch to allow
> that alternative syntax. But apart from that, I'd strongly caution
> against spending too much time on them except for pure
> hobby/research interest.

That's indisputably true of Modula-2. But there are still jobs in Ada and
while it's a niche if you can snag one they pay extremely well. Ada is
well supported on Linux (in particular your favorite distro, Debian, has a
very dedicated and hard-working maintainer) but is also available for any
Linux distro, and Windows. It's a top-flight GPL toolchain supporting all
the optional Annexes and there is also a gcc version derived from that.

Ada support off Linux and Windows gets very expensive. But the market is far
from dead. New standards have been approved even recently.

--
_ _  
._ _ _ <_> ___  _ _  ___  ___  ___  _| | ___ 
| ' ' || |/ | '| '_>/ . \/ | '/ . \/ . |/ ._>
|_|_|_||_|\_|_.|_|  \___/\_|_.\___/\___|\___.
 

___
fpc-pascal maillist  -  fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal

Re: [fpc-pascal] Basically on the right track?

[microcode]

On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 12:04:53PM +, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
> microc...@zoho.com wrote:
> 
> >Ada support off Linux and Windows gets very expensive. But the market is far
> >from dead. New standards have been approved even recently.
> 
> Unfortunately, that's also true of COBOL and even of some earlier
> programming representations :-)

That's what old hardware and emulators are for. I know you realize that. But
now we're getting too far afield for this list. Carry on, gents!

___
fpc-pascal maillist  -  fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal

Re: [fpc-pascal] Object pascal language compatiblity - was: Does FPC 2.8.0 can actually still be called Pascal ?

[microcode]

On Fri, Mar 01, 2013 at 09:23:29AM +, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
> Sven Barth wrote:
> 
> >>An llvm target will move the optimisation burden away from fpc, which
> >>would be very interesting.
> >
> >While we would welcome a LLVM backend it is basically a consent in
> >the development team that this would only be an additional
> >alternative to the normal backends FPC provides.
> 
> LLVM's target list doesn't look particularly brilliant compared with
> FPC's :-/

My concern also...This is happening with many projects I've seen. Everyone
wants the benefits of LLVM, but it leaves all but the most mainstream
targets unsupported.

> Are there any practical advantages to having both?

Personally I can only hope additional interest in LLVM will lead to more
supported platforms. I understand they don't have manpower for every
platform but as it is the narrow focus is certainly a concern, especially
when big projects like FreeBSD move away from gcc and make LLVM the official
"compiler of FreeBSD". Whether it's related or not, FreeBSD seems to have
back-burnered everything that's not Intel...

-- 
_ _  
._ _ _ <_> ___  _ _  ___  ___  ___  _| | ___ 
| ' ' || |/ | '| '_>/ . \/ | '/ . \/ . |/ ._>
|_|_|_||_|\_|_.|_|  \___/\_|_.\___/\___|\___.
 

___
fpc-pascal maillist  -  fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal

Re: [fpc-pascal] how to generate Free Pascal program for Open source router OpenWrt?

[microcode]

On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 03:09:07PM +, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
> Dennis wrote:
> >I wrote a free pascal program in ubuntu Linux and wanted to deploy
> >it to run in a netgear router through open router firmware
> >OpenWrt.
> >To test it, I copied the program into a OpenWrt virtualbox virtual
> >machine but when I ran it, it said:
> >[ 1891.890545] MyprogramName[1573] general protection ip:bf8e3f86
> >sp:bf8e2cd4 error:0 Segmentation fault

AFAIK VirtualBox is Intel x86 and AMD64 compatible. It will not run code for
any other architecture. I couldn't understand your post but if you're trying
to run MIPS code under VirtualBox, it will not work no matter what OS.

Then again maybe I am wrong and somebody ported VirtualBox to MIPS...


___
fpc-pascal maillist  -  fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal