> On Feb 16, 2008 2:00 AM, Marco van de Voort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > way it assumes the number of parameters and also the type of them, so
> > > as I asked before, how I can either call the syscall command without
> > > assembler, or how I can pass an array of const (prior to that I asked
On Feb 16, 2008 2:00 AM, Marco van de Voort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Another issue (I should report it as a bug imho) is that Do_Syscall is
> > not really usable if you require to use different parameters then
> > integer value, for example: PChar.
>
> > I think that the entire design of the
> Another issue (I should report it as a bug imho) is that Do_Syscall is
> not really usable if you require to use different parameters then
> integer value, for example: PChar.
> I think that the entire design of the Do_SysCall is malformed in the
> way it assumes the number of parameters and als
Another issue (I should report it as a bug imho) is that Do_Syscall is
not really usable if you require to use different parameters then
integer value, for example: PChar.
A call for example that use PChar as one of it's parameter is
inotify_add_watch .
I think that the entire design of the Do_Sy
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 8:36 PM, Micha Nelissen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ik wrote:
> > Actually the assembler is not that hard to understand :)
> > My point is, that I don't like the idea of 7 or 20 or 100 amount of
> > parameters to give answer to every need. I think we should find a
> > b
Vincent Snijders schrieb:
> Micha Nelissen schreef:
>> ik wrote:
>>> Actually the assembler is not that hard to understand :)
>>> My point is, that I don't like the idea of 7 or 20 or 100 amount of
>>> parameters to give answer to every need. I think we should find a
>>> better way to implement it,
> Micha Nelissen schreef:
> > ik wrote:
> >> Actually the assembler is not that hard to understand :)
> >> My point is, that I don't like the idea of 7 or 20 or 100 amount of
> >> parameters to give answer to every need. I think we should find a
> >> better way to implement it, like var args in C o
Micha Nelissen schreef:
ik wrote:
Actually the assembler is not that hard to understand :)
My point is, that I don't like the idea of 7 or 20 or 100 amount of
parameters to give answer to every need. I think we should find a
better way to implement it, like var args in C or open array in
pascal.
ik wrote:
> Actually the assembler is not that hard to understand :)
> My point is, that I don't like the idea of 7 or 20 or 100 amount of
> parameters to give answer to every need. I think we should find a
> better way to implement it, like var args in C or open array in
> pascal...
The linux ker
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008, wrote:
> Try this:
>
> q.SQL.Clear;
> q.Add('LOAD DATA INFILE ''data.txt'' INTO TABLE database.my_table;');
> q.Execute; // <-- I don't remember the correct command right now
>
Normally it is:
Q.ExecSQL;
Michael.
___
fpc-pa
Try this:
q.SQL.Clear;
q.Add('LOAD DATA INFILE ''data.txt'' INTO TABLE database.my_table;');
q.Execute; // <-- I don't remember the correct command right now
Leonardo
--- Wolfram Kläger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok. First one was simple. Keyword and opening bracket must be separated
> by a
Ok. First one was simple. Keyword and opening bracket must be separated
by a blank, e.g.
'.. MYTABLE(..' // wrong
'.. MYTABLE (..' // great
'..)values(..' // wrong
'..) values (..' // great
All field contents have to be bracketed by double apostrophes, e.g.
q.sql.add('''Florian Klaempfl'',')
How would you implement the specification ?
Would it be possible to "simply" embed the complete compiler into a DLL ?
Or would that make little sense ?
Bye,
Skybuck.
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.
>> > I found that the Do_Syscalls are written in assembly and have only
>> > limited number of parameters (up to 6). Is there a way to write it
>> > using array of TSysParam instead of having 7 different functions ?
>>
>> Maybe but it wouldn't make the assembler easier to read :-).
>
> Actually
14 matches
Mail list logo
