> Should I make fpc 3.0.0 once more using the newly created fpc 3.0.0?
Yes if you do compile by hand (without Makefile)
> Will there be some difference between the two 3.0.0 versions if I do?
If what you mean is: does 3.0.0 compiler binary produced from single
compilation by 2.6.4 differ from
Yes, you understand it correctly :)
The FPC RTL only exposes the hardware, not the firmware stack on top.
It might not be documented well anywhere but the weak linking with set
defaults basically means you can declare interrupt handlers like this:
procedure MySystickHandler; [public, alias: 'S
Answering myself here:
On Fr, 2016-01-08 at 23:43 +0100, Marc Santhoff wrote:
> On Fr, 2016-01-08 at 23:23 +0100, Jeppe Johansen wrote:
> > CMSIS is a lot of things. What exact part of it are you asking about here?
>
> In that file for example from line 887 on:
>
> http://svn.freepascal.org/cgi-
On Fr, 2016-01-08 at 23:23 +0100, Jeppe Johansen wrote:
> CMSIS is a lot of things. What exact part of it are you asking about here?
In that file for example from line 887 on:
http://svn.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/trunk/rtl/embedded/arm/stm32f407xx.pp?revision=32386&view=markup
there are
CMSIS is a lot of things. What exact part of it are you asking about here?
FPC's embedded target has a bunch of controller units that are pulled in
depending on the -Wp argument. These define exactly what you see in the
units in the rtl/embedded/arm directory. In most cases just the physical
r
Hi,
looking at the embedded source code there has been done a lot of work.
I'm interested in trying fpc on Cortex-M3 and M4, mostly from ST.
While trying to get an overview of the sources I found the declarations
are pulled into a processor specific file by external declarations. But
where does i
On 2016-01-08 03:53, Dennis wrote:
> Is this problem solved in FPC 3.0?
As Sven said, why not test with 3.0 it is released already and quick to
install. Anyway I tested with FPC 3.0 and it compiles just fine and the
running program behaves as it should.
Regards,
- Graeme -
--
fpGUI Toolkit -
Bo Berglund wrote:
I downloaded the release tag of fpc 3.0.0 via svn and built it using
the 2.6.4 seed compiler. It seems to work OK.
But now I got to thinking:
Should I make fpc 3.0.0 once more using the newly created fpc 3.0.0?
Will there be some difference between the two 3.0.0 versions if I
I downloaded the release tag of fpc 3.0.0 via svn and built it using
the 2.6.4 seed compiler. It seems to work OK.
But now I got to thinking:
Should I make fpc 3.0.0 once more using the newly created fpc 3.0.0?
Will there be some difference between the two 3.0.0 versions if I do?
--
Bo Berglund
> I didn't implement verification, and I don't plan any.
> But contributions are welcome.
Looks like a new entry in hmac unit + new sha256 unit would be needed. Codes
are around the net but sticking to existing hash package citizens would be
better for FPC future. Hope my crypto skill still stan
On Fri, 8 Jan 2016, leledumbo wrote:
Some questions:1. How to verify the signature? My grep result in packages
folder doesn't show that we have HMAC256 function.
I didn't implement verification, and I don't plan any.
But contributions are welcome.
2. The following
sample:{$mode objfpc}{$
Some questions:1. How to verify the signature? My grep result in packages
folder doesn't show that we have HMAC256 function.2. The following
sample:{$mode objfpc}{$H+}uses fpjwt, jsonparser;const EncodedStr =
'eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJzdWIiOiIxMjM0NTY3ODkwIiwibmFtZSI6IkpvaG4gRG9lIi
12 matches
Mail list logo
