Martin Schreiber wrote:
Copy the modified definition in type section of your program file:
...
Yes, it works!
Which means that if you put in your own type definitions, they will
simply overrule the system definitions.
I wasn't aware of that trick.
So I can do with that until a corre
On Sunday 08 January 2006 15.43, Hans Mårtensson wrote:
> Now, I'm not familiar with the development of the PFC,
> where and when can I download the corrected version of 2.0.2?
Copy the modified definition in type section of your program file:
Program test;
// Program for testing dialogue boxes
On 08 Jan 2006, at 15:43, Hans Mårtensson wrote:
Now, I'm not familiar with the development of the PFC,
where and when can I download the corrected version of 2.0.2?
You can't, Martin Schreiber compiled his own corrected version.
Jonas___
fpc-pasc
Martin Schreiber wrote:
Your testcase worked for me with FPC 2.0.2 and the modified DLGTEMPLATE and
DLGITEMTEMPLATE.
Yes, I'm convinced that the problem lies where you have pointed it out.
I have let my test program show sizeof(DLGTEMPLATE) and the output from
the version compiled with 2.0
Carsten Bager wrote:
> Hi
> I am programming to an embedded ARM platform and my question
> is, is it possible to force constants to stay in the code segment
> (constant strings etc.) In C you can do this using "static".
> It looks as all string constants are placed in the data segment, and all
Jonas Maebe wrote:
Can you check the date of the compiler with "fpc -iD"? As far as I
know no new snapshot was built last night because of errors compiling
the graph unit.
Right. Even though the zip file date is more recent, the "fpc -D" returns:
2005/12/29
Hans Mårtensson
Florian Klaempfl wrote:
> I think the fpc code is quite usable now:
>
> FPC 2.1.1
> Test 1: 100 ... done in 2.265 sec
> Test 2: 100 ... done in 1.563 sec
> Test 3: 100 ... done in 1.687 sec
>
> D7:
> Test 1: 100 ... done in 2.078 sec
> Test 2: 100 ... done in 2.078 sec
>
