September 2002 - Gpc

Dropping `--standard-pascal', `foo = procedure (Integer, Real)'
by toms＠ncifcrf.gov 04 Oct '02

04 Oct '02

Frank: I'm running gpc version 20000707, based on 2.95.2 19991024 (release) with set standard = "--standard-pascal" gpc $standard \ --transparent-file-names \ --no-mixed-comments \ -O$optimization \ -Wall \ $program.p -o $program (these are part of a script, ftp://ftp.ncifcrf.gov/pub/delila/gpcc ) I really like being able to compile original version (classic?) Pascal and I plan to switch to gpc (or p2c if gpc fails) in the future when Sun gives up on Pascal. So you wrote: | in the course of cleaning up GPC, I plan to drop the following | obsolete "features". | | - `--standard-pascal[-level-1]' (and the corresponding compiler | directives). GPC has `--classic-pascal[-level-1]' now to | distinguish it better from Extended Pascal (which also is a | standard). | ... | If you have any objections against removing them, please respond | soon. So would this make it impossible for me to compile "original" or "classical" Pascal? I don't know what the [-level-1] stuff is. Or how do I change my script Is there a web page that describes EVERY option now? However, I agree with Chuck Falconer that it should be easy to have the standard! Thanks, Tom Dr. Thomas D. Schneider National Cancer Institute Laboratory of Experimental and Computational Biology Frederick, Maryland 21702-1201 toms(a)ncifcrf.gov permanent email: toms(a)alum.mit.edu (use only if first address fails) http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/

3 3

Re: Dropping `--standard-pascal', `foo
by da Silva, Joe 30 Sep '02

30 Sep '02

I certainly don't object to identifying explicit ISO standards by their respective numbers, as you suggest. OTOH, we shouldn't have a myriad of ways of doing (specifying) the same thing. As you are no doubt aware, my concern with the "--standard-pascal" flag is that it infers that there is only one standard for Pascal. This is unfortunate, since the Extended Pascal Standard is just as much a standard, yet far too few people are even aware of it! Unless you (well, CBF actually;-) want to argue that "Extended Pascal" is not really Pascal, then use of the "--standard-pascal" flag is ambiguous at best. Anyway, if there is too much resistance to dropping the ambiguous "--standard-pascal" flag, we should at least discourage it's use in the documentation. For example, we could say something like : "--standard-pascal ... synonym for --classic-pascal". Joe. > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Verhoeff [SMTP:wstomv@win.tue.nl] > Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 5:33 PM > To: gpc(a)gnu.de > Subject: Re: Dropping `--standard-pascal', `foo > > >CBFalconer wrote: > > > >> Frank Heckenbach wrote: > >> > > >> > in the course of cleaning up GPC, I plan to drop the following > >> > obsolete "features". > >> > > >> > - `--standard-pascal[-level-1]' (and the corresponding compiler > >> > directives). GPC has `--classic-pascal[-level-1]' now to > >> > distinguish it better from Extended Pascal (which also is a > >> > standard). > >> > > >> > - The syntax `type foo = procedure (Integer, Real)' (i.e., without > >> > parameter names). > >> > > >> > If you have any objections against removing them, please respond > >> > soon. > >> > >> I strongly disagree. The very words "standard Pascal" > >> intrinsically reference ISO 7185, and "Extended Pascal" correlates > >> directly with the verbiage in ISO 10206. Without these > >> directives/flags the user is left groping about in the > >> documentation to find the appropriate magic incantations for > >> proper validation. > > > >I don't think typing `--standard-pascal' is any easier to use than > >`--classic-pascal' (in fact, it's even one letter more to type ;-). > >I'm also not sure whether someone new to GPC would guess > >`--standard-pascal' without looking in the manual (e.g., Invoking > >GPC -> GPC Options where the most common options are listed, > >including `--classic-pascal'). > > > >Just in case you misunderstood me here: I'm not going to remove the > >ISO 7185 support. I just want to remove one of the two equivalent > >switches to activate it. > > I do not think that the number of key strokes matters here. > Neither standard-pascal nor classic-pascal are unambiguous terms > (though they would do if documented properly). > > May I propose to call the option iso7185-pascal. The same number > of key strokes as classic-pascal, but, in my humble opinion, > unambiguous. > > Tom > -- > E-MAIL: T.Verhoeff at TUE.NL | Fac. of Math. & Computing Science > PHONE: +31 40 247 41 25 | Eindhoven University of Technology > FAX: +31 40 245 17 33 | PO Box 513, NL-5600 MB Eindhoven > http://www.win.tue.nl/~wstomv/ | The Netherlands >

2 1

Re: Dropping `--standard-pascal', `foo
by Tom Verhoeff 30 Sep '02

30 Sep '02

>CBFalconer wrote: > >> Frank Heckenbach wrote: >> > >> > in the course of cleaning up GPC, I plan to drop the following >> > obsolete "features". >> > >> > - `--standard-pascal[-level-1]' (and the corresponding compiler >> > directives). GPC has `--classic-pascal[-level-1]' now to >> > distinguish it better from Extended Pascal (which also is a >> > standard). >> > >> > - The syntax `type foo = procedure (Integer, Real)' (i.e., without >> > parameter names). >> > >> > If you have any objections against removing them, please respond >> > soon. >> >> I strongly disagree. The very words "standard Pascal" >> intrinsically reference ISO 7185, and "Extended Pascal" correlates >> directly with the verbiage in ISO 10206. Without these >> directives/flags the user is left groping about in the >> documentation to find the appropriate magic incantations for >> proper validation. > >I don't think typing `--standard-pascal' is any easier to use than >`--classic-pascal' (in fact, it's even one letter more to type ;-). >I'm also not sure whether someone new to GPC would guess >`--standard-pascal' without looking in the manual (e.g., Invoking >GPC -> GPC Options where the most common options are listed, >including `--classic-pascal'). > >Just in case you misunderstood me here: I'm not going to remove the >ISO 7185 support. I just want to remove one of the two equivalent >switches to activate it. I do not think that the number of key strokes matters here. Neither standard-pascal nor classic-pascal are unambiguous terms (though they would do if documented properly). May I propose to call the option iso7185-pascal. The same number of key strokes as classic-pascal, but, in my humble opinion, unambiguous. Tom -- E-MAIL: T.Verhoeff at TUE.NL | Fac. of Math. & Computing Science PHONE: +31 40 247 41 25 | Eindhoven University of Technology FAX: +31 40 245 17 33 | PO Box 513, NL-5600 MB Eindhoven http://www.win.tue.nl/~wstomv/ | The Netherlands

1 0

Re: Dropping `--standard-pascal', `foo
by Tom Schneider 29 Sep '02

29 Sep '02

> Removing [--standard.pascal] invalidates who knows > how many existing scripts and makefiles. Exactly. Why break old code? > If anything I would recommend retaining the present directives and > adding "ISO7185-0", "ISO7185-1" and "ISO10206". However I don't > expect that to happen. So this is purely my vote against deleting > the present directives. I would vote for this!! But please leave the old definitions and clarify what they are precisely using ISO numbers. That information is not in the info gpc documentation (first few pages). > Source that is valid under 7185-0 should be valid everywhere (in > the best of all possible worlds, Dr. Pangloss). I want to > encourage such as far as possible. Use of any extensions beyond > that causes portability problems somewhere or other. Absolutely!! > The message from Dr. Thomas Schneider <mailto:toms@ncifcrf.gov> is > indicative of the problems that deletion would cause. He > obviously does not have an info installation, or it is obsolete, > or he is unaware of it. I was aware of it but don't think to use it. I find it awkward and complex compared to web pages, man pages, help flags, xman ... Thanks for the tip. > He may be using scripts set up by > personnel who have long since moved on. I write the scripts myself but prefer not to have to muck with them. We could upgrade to the latest version but I try to stick to the standard so if it is supported I don't have to keep running to stay in place. If you drop --standard.pascal that will break the copies of my compile script that other people have. This would force me to make a variant of the script that figures out the version of gpc and then calls gpc the right way so that it does not bomb! How silly. > Hidebound people such as > myself view with horror any changes to installed software, > especially any lack of backward compatibility. Agreed. Tom Dr. Thomas D. Schneider National Cancer Institute Laboratory of Experimental and Computational Biology Frederick, Maryland 21702-1201 toms(a)ncifcrf.gov permanent email: toms(a)alum.mit.edu (use only if first address fails) http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/

1 0

Dropping `--standard-pascal', `foo = procedure (Integer, Real)'
by Frank Heckenbach 28 Sep '02

28 Sep '02

Hi, in the course of cleaning up GPC, I plan to drop the following obsolete "features". - `--standard-pascal[-level-1]' (and the corresponding compiler directives). GPC has `--classic-pascal[-level-1]' now to distinguish it better from Extended Pascal (which also is a standard). - The syntax `type foo = procedure (Integer, Real)' (i.e., without parameter names). If you have any objections against removing them, please respond soon. Frank -- Frank Heckenbach, frank(a)g-n-u.de, http://fjf.gnu.de/, 7977168E GPC To-Do list, latest features, fixed bugs: http://www.gnu-pascal.de/todo.html GPC download signing key: 51FF C1F0 1A77 C6C2 4482 4DDC 117A 9773 7F88 1707

2 3

objects as value parameters ?
by Michael Behm 27 Sep '02

27 Sep '02

Hello everbody, I coded a procedure which takes an object as a value parameter procedure AnyThing (var v: ObjTyp); where type ObjTyp = object .... The compiler returns the error "object must not be a value parameter" - this is pretty clear to me, but I can do it in Borland Pascal (at least with 6.0). Also, I used the --borland-pascal option Is there some possibility ? Thank you, best regards, Michael ===== HÃ¶hlenforschung in Ãsterreich: www.xploration.at.tt __________________________________________________________________ Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de MÃ¶chten Sie mit einem GruÃ antworten? http://grusskarten.yahoo.de

3 2

GPC on OS X (possibly OT)
by Lance Boyle 27 Sep '02

27 Sep '02

First, please let me apologize if this is an inappropriate post to this list. I've been watching the list for several days and it looks like it's for the development team, and perhaps my question is more appropriate for other Pascal lists. I'll be brief. Can I use the GPC compiler with the GCC which is distributed with Macintosh OS X, version 10.2.x? Many thanks for any responses. Jerry Bauck Tempe, Arizona, USA

1 0

CRT, xterm and no output from program.
by Martin Rusko 26 Sep '02

26 Sep '02

Hello all, I will try describe my problem in short: {<program name=hello.pas>} program hello; uses crt; begin clrscr; writeln; writeln; writeln("Hello Dolly"); end. {</program>} Then will I compile this code with: gpc -o hello.e --automake hello.pas !!!Main problem!!!: When running $ ./hello.e under xterm in X Windows, it just blinks and NOTHING is written into screen. $ ./hello.e > err.log 2>&1 produces me this: ^[(B^[)0^[[?1049h^[[1;24r^[[m^O^[[4l^[[?7h^[[39;49m^[[?1h^[=^[[39;49m^[[37m^[[40m^[[37m^[[40m^[[H^[[2J^[[m^O^[[39;49m^[[37m^[[40m^[[?1h^[=^[[?25h^[[39;49m^[[37m^[[40m^[[37m^[[40m^[[H^[[2J Hello Dolly^M ^[[m^O^[[39;49m^[[37m^[[40m^[[39;49m^[[24d^[[K^[[24;1H^[[?1049l^M^[[?1l^[> It behaves just fine and as expected when I change TERM variable from xterm to linux or vt100. But it is not solution, for me. ;-( System is: Debian Woody (stable) running on sparc64 (Sun Ultra 1) Relevant packages: stable libncurses5 5.2.20020112a-7 stable libncurses5-dev 5.2.20020112a-7 stable ncurses-bin 5.2.20020112a-7 stable ncurses-base 5.2.20020112a-7 stable ncurses-term 5.2.20020112a-7 stable gpc-2.95 1:2.95.4-7 Any help, tips will be very appreciated. Thanks. mARTin -- Martin Rusko PhD student Department of Automation and Measurement Faculty of Mechanical Engineering Slovak University of Technology -- E-mail: rusko(a)sunsite.mine.nu Web: http://sunsite.mine.nu/~rusko -- motto: We are Microsoft! Resistance is futile. Open your source code and prepare for assimilation.

3 6

max/memavail
by Michael Behm 24 Sep '02

24 Sep '02

hello together, i have the following questions: i've been working with borland pascal under DOS for quite a long time, and now i changed to gpc under Solaris 8 on a SUN Blade 1000. i've to admit that i don't know much of UNIX itself. when i use the functions Max/MemAvail, the program seems to halt (it doesn't crash, just waits until i destroy via ctrl-c). i suppose that MaxAvail/MemAvail does only make sense under DOS - i don't know if there is anything like a heap in UNIX. are there any similiar functions (which work) in gpc/UNIX ? how can i determine the space which is free for a single pointer variable ? what is the heap-system (if there is one) in UNIX ? with GetMem, can i address the whole memory (which is 1 GByte) ? a lot of questions, i know, but i hope somebody can help me. thank you, and best wishes, michael ! ===== HÃ¶hlenforschung in Ãsterreich: www.xploration.at.tt __________________________________________________________________ Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de MÃ¶chten Sie mit einem GruÃ antworten? http://grusskarten.yahoo.de

2 1

Re: Dev+GNU Pascal [Was Re: Installation problem gpcpp.exe no such]
by Prof. A Olowofoyeku (The African Chief) 21 Sep '02

21 Sep '02

On 18 Sep 2002 at 9:21, I wrote: > On 18 Sep 2002 at 0:57, Frank Heckenbach wrote: [...] > > But something else (I still don't really understand the story): > > Searching of gpcpp does not use the unit-path. The path is > > hard-coded while building GPC, so if it is installed in the same > > directory, no option is needed to find it. Otherwise it can be set > > with a `-B' option or an environment variable GPC_EXEC_PREFIX. Is > > that what the IDE sets for the "bin directory"? > > This is an example of output of the "compile log" window: > "c:\dev_gpc\bin\gpc --automake c:\dev_gpc\examples\untitled1.pas > -oc:\dev_gpc\examples\untitled1.exe -fno-inline -fno-io-checking > -fno-stack-checking -O1 -march=i386 -mcpu=i386 > -funit-path=c:\dev_gpc\units -Bc:\dev_gpc\lib\ -Bc:\dev_gpc\lib\gcc- > lib\ -Bc:\dev_gpc\bin\" > > So the necessary "-B" switches are there - and I cannot see why there > should be a problem. I have now checked the compile log again, and I can see that the entire command line contains about 273 characters. Perhaps we have come across a DOS limitation here? I seem to remember that DOS (or command.com) has some limits in respect of how long a command line can be (128 characters?). If this is the problem, then I don't know what one can do about it. Best regards, The Chief --------- Prof. Abimbola Olowofoyeku (The African Chief) Email: African_Chief(a)bigfoot.com http://www.bigfoot.com/~african_chief/

4 14