03-11-13 13.01, skrev Yakov Sudeikin följande:
> Guten morgen,
>
> The same idea that I sent to borland bug/feature website years ago and want
> to share with greatly respected FPC community.
> Let's call it "reuse unit", wich can save a lot of time and space for
> developers and is really easy t
> > More:
> > 2787 - ask the reporter to try again and post compiling code next
> time,
> >his code has "virtual; override;" which is not really possible
> Therefore the compiler should give an error message, instead of
> compiling merrily on.
>
> Why should he post compiling code?
Becau
> -Oorspronkelijk bericht-
> On Mon, 2003-11-24 at 19:51, Johannes Berg wrote:
>
> > [list of bugs]
>
> More:
> 2787 - ask the reporter to try again and post compiling code next
time,
>his code has "virtual; override;" which is not really possible
Therefore the compiler should g
On Mon, 2003-11-24 at 19:51, Johannes Berg wrote:
> [list of bugs]
More:
2771 - works fine
2492 - works for me if I understand the report correctly
2535 - should imho be closed invalid, you can't really export methods,
they have compiler magic with extra parameters and such
2543 - the {$s
Tried to port my script engine to the newest Free Pascal, but when
trying to compile my fptest.pas project (probably has some errors in it
left) I get internal error .
http://www.carlo-kok.com/downloads/ifps3-fpc.zip
Besides that, I didn't seem to be able to use Finalize (originally from
D
-- Start of PGP signed section.
> On Tue, 2003-11-25 at 12:55, Marco van de Voort wrote:
> > It works on FreeBSD too, and NetBSD partially (double faults are treated
> > slightly different IIRC). This is the notorious "TException4" test.
>
> Then whats the point in checking all the pre-conditions
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2759 - attached is a patch of i386 only. However, wouldn't it be more
appropriate to handle FPU exceptions than checking all
pre-conditions?
If someone knows how to handle these exceptions correctly, yes.
Applied the fix, and set to fixed.
Hmm, I thought to f
On Tue, 2003-11-25 at 12:55, Marco van de Voort wrote:
> It works on FreeBSD too, and NetBSD partially (double faults are treated
> slightly different IIRC). This is the notorious "TException4" test.
Then whats the point in checking all the pre-conditions in all the math
functions though?
johanne
> On Tue, 2003-11-25 at 12:00, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > I'll investigate the signal handling issue(s) and see if its possible to
> > handle SIGFPE properly.
>
> This is already implemented, at least on linux.
It works on FreeBSD too, and NetBSD partially (double faults are treated
slightly differ
On Tue, 2003-11-25 at 12:00, Johannes Berg wrote:
> I'll investigate the signal handling issue(s) and see if its possible to
> handle SIGFPE properly.
This is already implemented, at least on linux. So why is there even a
check? If I do
writeln(ln(a)) where a:extended=0
then I get a SIGFPE which i
> > 2759 - attached is a patch of i386 only. However, wouldn't it be more
> >appropriate to handle FPU exceptions than checking all
> >pre-conditions?
>
> If someone knows how to handle these exceptions correctly, yes.
Well, its platform dependent. On Windows, you get an exception
11 matches
Mail list logo
