> On the website on the right is a link "Documentation".
>
> http://freepascal.org/docs.var
OK after some more searching I found the Building faq (PDF) on
http://freepascal.org/moreinfo.var
Cheers,
Tobias
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@list
On 10 July 2010 21:21, Tobias Giesen wrote:
>
> I couldn't find any documentation on making FPC anywhere on
> freepascal.org. Maybe I missed something?
On the website on the right is a link "Documentation".
http://freepascal.org/docs.var
--
Regards,
- Graeme -
___
On 24 Sep 2009, at 20:12, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
Does FPC actually differentiate optimization between Core2 vs i7 vs
Phenom etc?
No.
Or does it group those into something like optimization
level 3 (just an example)
It groups them using the -Opxxx/-Cpxxx parameters. Use fpc -i to see
w
On 25 Sep 2009, at 09:26, Jonas Maebe wrote:
Can I improve performance of the 64bit FPC compiler for my Quad Core
processor? If so, what parameters do I pass to the make command?
OPT="-Cppentiumm -Oppentiumm"
Sorry, that's for a 32 bit compiler. For a 64 bit compiler, there are
no special
On 24 Sep 2009, at 18:01, graemeg.lists wrote:
How optimized is FPC itself when I do a 'make all' in the source
directory? No optimization, memory optimized, speed optimized, all of
the above, etc..
For speed.
Can I improve performance of the 64bit FPC compiler for my Quad Core
processor?
2009/9/24 Reimar Grabowski :
>
> Sometimes you are just too funny, Graeme.
:-)
Does FPC actually differentiate optimization between Core2 vs i7 vs
Phenom etc? Or does it group those into something like optimization
level 3 (just an example) and detect currently used CPU itself (if not
specified l
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 18:15:24 +0200
"graemeg.lists" wrote:
> I don't know which "model" mine is.
> model name : Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPUQ9400 @ 2.66GHz
Sometimes you are just too funny, Graeme.
R.
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is
2009/9/24 Marco van de Voort :
>
> Which quad core? There are afaik at least four microarchitectures for x86_64
> that have quadcores. I7, Core2 (depending on your viewpoint if that counts
> as a quadcore or a dual dualcore), Phenom and Phenom II.
I don't know which "model" mine is. Here is partia
In our previous episode, graemeg.lists said:
> How optimized is FPC itself when I do a 'make all' in the source
> directory? No optimization, memory optimized, speed optimized, all of
> the above, etc..
>
> Can I improve performance of the 64bit FPC compiler for my Quad Core
> processor? If so, w
Op woensdag 20-08-2008 om 03:44 uur [tijdzone -0700], schreef leledumbo:
> Is it possible? I usually use 2.3.1, but sometimes I need the stable version,
> too. I'd like to build everything from source as I'm doing a custom build
> (at least, not just 'make all').
Try it, and you'll see that it won
Tobias Giesen schrieb:
>
> Where can I get the 2.2 sources?
http://www.freepascal.org/down/source/sources-ftp.freepascal.org.var
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
> Where can I get the 2.2 sources?
See the development page on the website.
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
On 09 Oct 2007, at 15:08, Tobias Giesen wrote:
I would like to compile FPC. Do I need a special make tool? When I
type make all, I get many error messages, apparently because the
make tool from Apple is not the right one.
No, it's because the makefile probably does not find your installed
F
Op Thu, 15 Feb 2007, schreef Jose Pascual:
> Hi Everyone,
>
> Is it possible compiling FPC inside scratchbox (with any target for example
> scratchbox for arm)?
> If yes, how could I do it?
To my knowlede nobody has looked at this yet. However, such a toolkit is
much less necessary for Free P
Tomas Hajny wrote:
> On 5 Aug 06, at 21:03, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
>> Tomas Hajny wrote:
>>> Peter Vreman wrote:
>> on't bother with Solaris in 2.0.x, it won't work at all. None of
>> the Solaris fixes from 2.1.1 have been merged
> On a positive note, Sparc/Solaris works fine in 2.1.1
On 5 Aug 06, at 21:03, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
> Tomas Hajny wrote:
> > Peter Vreman wrote:
> on't bother with Solaris in 2.0.x, it won't work at all. None of
> the Solaris fixes from 2.1.1 have been merged
> >>> On a positive note, Sparc/Solaris works fine in 2.1.1
> >> I tried to merge
Jonas Maebe wrote:
> Sent.
Thanks, got it. I've just added another Perl rule to the filters to hopefully
allow patches while rejecting any other multiparts.
--
Mark Morgan Lloyd
markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk
[Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues]
_
On 05 Aug 2006, at 23:42, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
Drat- sorry, the patch didn't get here (filters on ML are more than
a little
agressive). Any chance of a copy to either markMLl.in or
markMLl.fpc2 .AT.
telemetry .DOT. co.uk?
Sent.
Jonas
___
f
Jonas Maebe wrote:
> I would suggest to use 2.0.4-rc2 with the patch I posted to the list.
> It should work fine.
Drat- sorry, the patch didn't get here (filters on ML are more than a little
agressive). Any chance of a copy to either markMLl.in or markMLl.fpc2 .AT.
telemetry .DOT. co.uk?
--
Mar
On 05 Aug 2006, at 23:26, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
I guess that's the last time I look at 2.0.2- it's obviously got
problems.
I would suggest to use 2.0.4-rc2 with the patch I posted to the list.
It should work fine.
Jonas
___
fpc-pascal maill
Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
> Compilation (make cycle) now progresses beyond that one and gets to this:
>
> /home/markMLl/pascal/src/fpcsrc/compiler/ppc1 -Fi../inc -Fi../sparc -Fi../unix
> -Fisparc -FE. -FU../../rtl/units/sparc-linux -dsparc -Us -Sg system.pp
> Free Pascal Compiler version 2.0.4-rc2
Tomas Hajny wrote:
> Peter Vreman wrote:
on't bother with Solaris in 2.0.x, it won't work at all. None of
the Solaris fixes from 2.1.1 have been merged
>>> On a positive note, Sparc/Solaris works fine in 2.1.1
>> I tried to merge it in the past but aborted it. The Solaris RTL
>> changes h
Peter Vreman wrote:
>>
>>>on't bother with Solaris in 2.0.x, it won't work at all. None of
>>>the Solaris fixes from 2.1.1 have been merged
>>
>>On a positive note, Sparc/Solaris works fine in 2.1.1
>
> I tried to merge it in the past but aborted it. The Solaris RTL
> changes had a too much conflic
on't bother with Solaris in 2.0.x, it won't work at all. None of
the Solaris fixes from 2.1.1 have been merged
On a positive note, Sparc/Solaris works fine in 2.1.1
I tried to merge it in the past but aborted it. The Solaris RTL
changes had a too much conflicts to qualify for a merge to 2
Looking forward to getting that far :-) I'm considering running up v8 in a
SPARCserver but right now I can do without the extra heat.
--
Mark Morgan Lloyd
markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk
[Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues]
_
On 3 aug 2006, at 19:03, Jonas Maebe wrote:
on't bother with Solaris in 2.0.x, it won't work at all. None of
the Solaris fixes from 2.1.1 have been merged
On a positive note, Sparc/Solaris works fine in 2.1.1
Jonas
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc
On 3 aug 2006, at 17:14, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
Thanks, every bit helps. I'm hoping to look at Solaris at some
point but I've
only got v8 running here at present- I'm hoping there'll be a v10
with the new
machines.
Don't bother with Solaris in 2.0.x, it won't work at all. None of the
Jonas Maebe wrote:
> I can reproduce the problem under SPARC/Solaris. I'll try to get at
> least that one compiling (don't have access to a sparc/linux machine)
> and commit the needed patches.
Thanks, every bit helps. I'm hoping to look at Solaris at some point but I've
only got v8 running here
On 3 aug 2006, at 16:10, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
As discussed earlier I was starting off with the released 2.0.0
compiler. Source
files from fpcbuild_2_0_4_rc2.zip downloaded about 24 hours ago-
I've got
limited free bandwidth here.
I can reproduce the problem under SPARC/Solaris. I'll t
OK, 4x calls missing as below
1 1>[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/pascal/src/fpcsrc/rtl/linux/sparc$ diff -u sysnr.inc~
sysnr.inc
--- sysnr.inc~ 2006-02-15 07:19:26.0 +
+++ sysnr.inc 2006-08-03 13:49:10.0 +
@@ -207,14 +207,14 @@
syscall_nr_setpgid = 185 ; // Common
Peter Vreman wrote:
> 2.0.4 (and also the current 2.1.1) can still be build by 2.0.0.
Sure- on an Intel platform.
Running on i386- I've just had another session and can confirm that 2.0.2 can
build both its own sources and those of 2.0.4, so my earlier problem was
definitely something to do with
Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
> Jonas Maebe wrote:
>
>> > The only thing that bothers me here is that while this is the
>> > correct solution
>> > it might not be possible. With the major caveat that I'm a beginner
>> > at this but
>> > I've demonstrated that 2.0.0 can't compile 2.0.2, and I suspect
>>
Mark Morgan Lloyd schreef:
Jonas Maebe wrote:
The only thing that bothers me here is that while this is the
correct solution
it might not be possible. With the major caveat that I'm a beginner
at this but
I've demonstrated that 2.0.0 can't compile 2.0.2, and I suspect
that once I've
fixed the m
Jonas Maebe wrote:
> > The only thing that bothers me here is that while this is the
> > correct solution
> > it might not be possible. With the major caveat that I'm a beginner
> > at this but
> > I've demonstrated that 2.0.0 can't compile 2.0.2, and I suspect
> > that once I've
> > fixed the mis
> Vincent Snijders wrote:
>
>> Look up the syscall_nr_exit_group (the number for exit_group syscall)
>> for sparc and
>> add it to rtl/linux/sparc/sysnr.inc and try to compile again.
>>
>> This syscall was not used in fpc 2.0.2, but was added afterwards. You
>> might find
>> more of those.
>
> Than
Vincent Snijders wrote:
> Look up the syscall_nr_exit_group (the number for exit_group syscall) for
> sparc and
> add it to rtl/linux/sparc/sysnr.inc and try to compile again.
>
> This syscall was not used in fpc 2.0.2, but was added afterwards. You might
> find
> more of those.
Thanks. I'll f
On 3 aug 2006, at 11:11, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
Forget about old stable releases like 2.0.2, only work with
current svn
(2.0.4 or 2.1.1).
The only thing that bothers me here is that while this is the
correct solution
it might not be possible. With the major caveat that I'm a beginner
Peter Vreman wrote:
> There is only one correct solution: Fix the building of the 2.0.4 by
> looking up the correct syscall in the C headers.
>
> Forget about old stable releases like 2.0.2, only work with current svn
> (2.0.4 or 2.1.1).
The only thing that bothers me here is that while this is
Mark Morgan Lloyd schreef:
Tomas Hajny wrote:
I propose to check with the 2.0.4-rc2 sources. You can get these from
ftp://ftp.freepascal.org/pub/fpc/beta/2.0.4-rc2/source/,
That builds (make cycle) OK on/for linux-i386 using FPC 2.0.2, but on
linux-sparc using FPC 2.0.0 I get:
Target OS: Lin
> Tomas Hajny wrote:
>
>> I propose to check with the 2.0.4-rc2 sources. You can get these from
>> ftp://ftp.freepascal.org/pub/fpc/beta/2.0.4-rc2/source/,
>
> That builds (make cycle) OK on/for linux-i386 using FPC 2.0.2, but on
> linux-sparc using FPC 2.0.0 I get:
>
> Target OS: Linux for SPARC
>
Tomas Hajny wrote:
> I propose to check with the 2.0.4-rc2 sources. You can get these from
> ftp://ftp.freepascal.org/pub/fpc/beta/2.0.4-rc2/source/,
That builds (make cycle) OK on/for linux-i386 using FPC 2.0.2, but on
linux-sparc using FPC 2.0.0 I get:
Target OS: Linux for SPARC
Compiling syst
On 2 aug 2006, at 10:20, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
Not only that, but a kernel crash always means something is wrong in
the kernel. No matter how badly a program is written, the (Linux)
kernel should never crash (UML or otherwise).
Yes, agreed. I might re-test as I get to understand things bet
Jonas Maebe wrote:
>
> On 2 aug 2006, at 00:47, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
>
> > * If I run the tests (make full) on i386 2.0.2 I get a UML (User
> > Mode Linux on
> > 2.4.32) kernel crash on testfpuc.pp. I'll try and check this out on
> > a "real"
> > system presently, I've found UML to be pretty
On 2 aug 2006, at 00:47, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
* If I run the tests (make full) on i386 2.0.2 I get a UML (User
Mode Linux on
2.4.32) kernel crash on testfpuc.pp. I'll try and check this out on
a "real"
system presently, I've found UML to be pretty robust but knowing
the effort
that's
I'm hoping to be able to sit down tomorrow and read more documentation, but for
the moment here's where I'm at.
* I can build i386 2.0.2 and appear to get something working out of it using
make cycle or make zipinstall. "Working" in this context is that it will
generate a runnable program from he
Tomas Hajny wrote:
Thanks Tomas, all good stuff :-)
I'll be back.
--
Mark Morgan Lloyd
markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk
[Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues]
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepas
Peter Vreman wrote:
> >* Are there further validation tests available?
>
> There is a testsuite available in SVN (or fpc.zip) under fpc/trunk/tests
Thanks. Got fpc/tests from the source which I presume is what you're referring
to.
> >* How can I build an installation bundle to move to a virgi
Peter Vreman wrote:
> At 17:06 31-7-2006, you wrote:
>>First, is this the best list to discuss this?
Yes for basic questions like "how to do this or that". When discussing
more complex stuff like "is this the right way for fixing problem XYZ
which popped up on SPARC", or "attached diff should fix
At 17:06 31-7-2006, you wrote:
First, is this the best list to discuss this?
I've got rather agressive filtering in my mailing list gateway. If
anybody tries
to send any attachments etc. to me please use markMLl.fpc2 .AT.
telemetry .DOT.
co .DOT. uk.
I admit readily to being a beginner as f
49 matches
Mail list logo
