Many thanks for your light Jonas.
Fre;D
-
Many thanks ;-)
--
View this message in context:
http://free-pascal-general.1045716.n5.nabble.com/Something-like-TProcess-Environment-for-libraries-tp5727468p5727536.html
Sent from the Free Pascal - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> op_open_memory() is buggy.
> (But maybe I m wrong...).
Yes I was wrong.
Opus needs a bigger buffer than mp3, increasing the size fixed it.
It works, sound is perfect from a https too.
Only remain a problem: after 10 seconds of playing, op_read_float() does not
give output.
I must study deep
On 29.01.2017 10:00, Lars wrote:
"DisposeOf breaks ARC.
ARC tends to brake Object Pascal paradigms, anyway, so the question
might be where to draw the line...
-Michael
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepasc
On 27.01.2017 22:55, Jonas Maebe wrote:
The collector only runs very occasionally. If you need instant
freeing, a garbage-collected platform is not what you want.
True. It of course should not trigger the garbage collection process
(AFAIK, this is possible by a certain API call, but totally
i
On 27.01.2017 15:36, Dmitry Boyarintsev wrote:
Why dummy? if it should be like this ...
ObjectPascal provides FreeAndNil() for this, as Free does not return any
value assigned to "self".
-Michael
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freep
On 31/01/17 15:30, Ryan Joseph wrote:
Thanks for answering guys. Yes José is right, hashing the pointer wasn’t even a
good solution so I used another hash. I had the pointers stored in another data
type and I wanted to quickly test for the their entry in the table but I found
another way.
On
Thanks for answering guys. Yes José is right, hashing the pointer wasn’t even a
good solution so I used another hash. I had the pointers stored in another data
type and I wanted to quickly test for the their entry in the table but I found
another way.
> On Jan 30, 2017, at 4:28 PM, José Mejuto
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 4:22 AM, LacaK wrote:
>
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'm using FPC 3.0.1.
>>> I've updated my sources and saw that dblib was updated, specifically
>>> in revision 35345.
>>>
>>> My doubts are:
>>>
>>> 1. I need to update my dblib.dll too?
>
> no
>
>>> 2. If so, I could get this new v
