I build FPC cross-compilers for Windows, Macintosh and (32 bit) Linux on a
Debian Wheezy 64 bit host.
There appears to be a bug in the build process that produces dodgy
*crosszipinstall
tarballs* for Windows.
This applies to FPC 2.6.0, 2.6.2 RC1 and 2.7.1 (today's SVN head). It's
completely broke
07.01.13, 11:47, Jorge Aldo G. de F. Junior пишет:
Are you SURE you need "class constructor" ?
He needs it to initialize a class variable (static field).
Best regards,
Paul Ishenin
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://l
Are you SURE you need "class constructor" ?
because usually all you need is a plain old constructor... like
constructor create(const aparam : integer); // etc
to be honest i never used a class constructor before... (dont even
know this exists).
2013/1/6 Paul Ishenin :
> 07.01.13, 8:03, Howard P
07.01.13, 8:03, Howard Page-Clark пишет:
The following program compiles and gives output as expected, but if the
lines that call the class destructor are uncommented it fails to compile
with the error "identifier idents no member "Finalise"
...
Am I not understanding how to use a class destruct
The following program compiles and gives output as expected, but if the
lines that call the class destructor are uncommented it fails to compile
with the error "identifier idents no member "Finalise"
program classConstructor;
{$mode objfpc}
uses Classes;
type
TXClass = class
cl
On 1/6/13, Florian Klämpfl wrote:
>>> For the illeterate that I am, thich raises yet another dumb question:
>>> 64-bit CPU's don't have 64-bit registers?
>>
>> Try with a compiler for a 64 bit compiler.
Okay, now I am feeling realy stupid and embarassed.
Shame on me.
Bart
__
Am 06.01.2013 12:46, schrieb Florian Klämpfl:
> Am 06.01.2013 12:42, schrieb Bart:
>> On 1/6/13, Florian Klämpfl wrote:
>>
>>> Because operations like array accesses require that they fit into one
>>> register.
>>
>> OK
>> For the illeterate that I am, thich raises yet another dumb question:
>> 64
Am 06.01.2013 12:42, schrieb Bart:
> On 1/6/13, Florian Klämpfl wrote:
>
>> Because operations like array accesses require that they fit into one
>> register.
>
> OK
> For the illeterate that I am, thich raises yet another dumb question:
> 64-bit CPU's don't have 64-bit registers?
Try with a co
On 1/6/13, Florian Klämpfl wrote:
> Because operations like array accesses require that they fit into one
> register.
OK
For the illeterate that I am, thich raises yet another dumb question:
64-bit CPU's don't have 64-bit registers?
Bart
___
fpc-pasca
