[Note that I did a copy&paste from the list archives because the mail
address I am subscribed to this list isn't working properly atm. I switched
to another, but this means I couldn't reply to the original posting and so
message threading is broken. Sorry.]
Hi,
>under GO32V2 i want to call BIOS P
Balogh, Karoly (Charlie/iNQ) wrote:
It seems to me, currently a lot of things morphing inside the compiler,
around the code generator, register allocator, and things like that.
When will these things stabilize? So is it worth make a try to begin
a new code generator right now :), or it's more wise
>> The development has been suspended until someone starts development.
>> Carl
>> will stay with the 68k in the 1.0.x branch and not move to the 1.1
>> branch.
>
> 1.0.x branch? AFAIR, it was told that all developments stopped on the old
> compiler.
Development is stopped. Carl wants to use the 6
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
under GO32V2 i want to call BIOS PnP function with entry point
db $FF,$1E; dw PnP_EntryPoint
or
call DWord ptr [PnP_EntryPoint]
but always i got error "SIGSEGV - segmentation violation".
PnP_EntryPoint (type pointer) is normally somewhere in BIOS area
Hi,
under GO32V2 i want to call BIOS PnP function with entry point
db $FF,$1E; dw PnP_EntryPoint
or
call DWord ptr [PnP_EntryPoint]
but always i got error "SIGSEGV - segmentation violation".
PnP_EntryPoint (type pointer) is normally somewhere in BIOS area at
F000:h.
In PnP s
Hi,
On 03.09.09., Peter Vreman wrote:
>> What about 68k support in the 1.1 branch? I see there are some files in
>> for it, but currently i see no sign if someone is working on in, or it
>> will be in usable state in the near future. So what is the current state
>> of 68k support? Dropped, suspen
Hi,
Interesting thread indeed.
Peter Vreman escribió:
Here is a summary of the platforms:
- PowerPC is working
- ARM is in development
- SPARC is in development
- x86_64 development will start ASAP the developpers have hardware
- ia64, if you pay for the hardware... (using an external compilefar
>> Here is a summary of the platforms:
>> - PowerPC is working
>> - ARM is in development
>> - SPARC is in development
>> - x86_64 development will start ASAP the developpers have hardware
>> - ia64, if you pay for the hardware... (using an external compilefarm is
>> not an option)
>> - .NET, none
>> Here is a summary of the platforms:
>> - PowerPC is working
>> - ARM is in development
>> - SPARC is in development
>> - x86_64 development will start ASAP the developpers have hardware
>> - ia64, if you pay for the hardware... (using an external compilefarm is
>> not an option)
>> - .NET, none
Hi,
On 03.09.09., Peter Vreman wrote:
> Here is a summary of the platforms:
> - PowerPC is working
> - ARM is in development
> - SPARC is in development
> - x86_64 development will start ASAP the developpers have hardware
> - ia64, if you pay for the hardware... (using an external compilefarm is
> > ARM and x86-64 are under construction. iA64 will follow as soon as it's
> > important.
>
> ARM support is only one half of work. What about WinCE support?
I don't have one, and the ARM developpers use Linux Zaurusses afaik.
So I don't see it on the horizon, since the FPC donations fund is a
Lukas Gebauer wrote:
ARM and x86-64 are under construction. iA64 will follow as soon as it's
important.
ARM support is only one half of work. What about WinCE support?
Luckily enough my PDA runs linux ;)
___
fpc-pascal maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ARM and x86-64 are under construction. iA64 will follow as soon as it's
> important.
ARM support is only one half of work. What about WinCE support?
--
Lukas Gebauer.
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.ararat.cz/synapse/ - Ararat Synapse - TCP/IP Lib.
__
>> Since there is no real non win32 .NET OS in the picture, there is no
>> real
>> hurry anyway.
>>
>> What would be the advantages of FPC compiling for .NET in your opinion?
>
> .NET is not only for Win32! (AFAIK .NET for Linuxes is in development
> too.)
>
> For example, I have the PDA. On this
Lukas Gebauer wrote:
Since there is no real non win32 .NET OS in the picture, there is no real
hurry anyway.
What would be the advantages of FPC compiling for .NET in your opinion?
.NET is not only for Win32! (AFAIK .NET for Linuxes is in development
too.)
For example, I have the PDA. On this
> Since there is no real non win32 .NET OS in the picture, there is no real
> hurry anyway.
>
> What would be the advantages of FPC compiling for .NET in your opinion?
.NET is not only for Win32! (AFAIK .NET for Linuxes is in development
too.)
For example, I have the PDA. On this PDA is OS Win
>
> What about compiling for .NET? It is planned feature?
There used to be sb interested in it, but more for embedded use, however he
has not spoken about it in a while, so I guess that died.
There hasn't been much interest of people to work on it since.
Since there is no real non win32 .NET O
What about compiling for .NET? It is planned feature?
--
Lukas Gebauer.
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.ararat.cz/synapse/ - Ararat Synapse - TCP/IP Lib.
___
fpc-pascal maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo
> Just downloaded the 1.0.10 package and tried to compile the ide. I had
> quite a few problems:
>
> fpcatch.pas(67,10) Fatal: Can't find unit DRIVERS make[2]: *** [fp] Error
Drivers is part of the Turbo Vision package, which is proprietary (since
still based on copyrighted borland code).
There
19 matches
Mail list logo
