Gpc

gpc@gnu.de

5400 discussions

OsX Terminal Sounds
by Nathan Schneider 28 Jan '04

28 Jan '04

Hello! I'm trying to write a simple musical program for macosx terminal (haven't yet graduated to GUI) and not sure how to work the sounds out, especially since the included crt unit's "sound" doesn't seem to work. Basically, I'm trying to get some pitches specified as notes. Should I be approaching this by writing directly to the sound card somehow, or else maybe using sound files, or somewhere in between? any help or nudges in one direction or another would be greatly appreciated. thanks. nathan

3 3

Re: PExecute and arguments
by Peter Norton 28 Jan '04

28 Jan '04

>Exec ('notepad.exe', 'c:\temp\foo.txt'); Thanks Professor. Actually I tried to replace Exec with PExecute. I'm adapting my old Pascal programs ( they're ok with FPC, VP ) to the GNU Pascal standards and found that Exec doesn't fires the program while your simple code works fine. Peter __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/

1 0

Re: Danger!
by J. David Bryan 27 Jan '04

27 Jan '04

I wrote: > I've searched the changelog for binutils 2.14 and did not find any > mention of such a patch. I spoke too soon. The FSF binutils does not mention a fix for this problem; however, the 20030807 Mingw binutils snapshot does appear to contain a patch. See: ftp://ftp2.sourceforge.net/pub/sourceforge/mingw/binutils-2.14.90-20030807-… which says, in part: The 2.14.90-20030807-1 snapshot incorporates modifications to official binutils CVS since last update. It also fixes a bug (again) with w9x fseek, where file contents are not zero'd out if you seek past the end and then write. This patch has not been in recent binutils releases. So perhaps the OP can use that binutils snapshot (available at the same FTP location, or via http://www.mingw.org/ ) to work around the problem on Win9x. -- Dave

5 7

Danger!
by Peter Norton 27 Jan '04

27 Jan '04

Just whant to confirm - binutils 2.14.90 (20030807) fixed the problem with MinGW. And "-mno-cygwin" is ok with Cygwin. Thanks to all for the help ;-) Peter __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/

1 0

Danger!
by Peter Norton 24 Jan '04

24 Jan '04

Info: To explore the content of exe file produced by gpc I compiled foo.pas - just "begin end.". It gave me 349.322 bytes exe file. Open it with hex editor I was wondered with content - there are a small manual how to use RTS (?), alot of zeros ... and a few web addresses I visited a few days ago! I have compiled one more time with -s switch. Again the visited addresses from the history of my Opera 6.05 I used hour before. Exploring it closer I found that some random memory dump is embeding in to exe. Who knows what will be there the next time - may be an accout's passwords or credit card detail you entered some days ago in browser. It placed after second 'msvcrt.dll' followed by two zeros and always is 328 bytes. I saved a few samples if someone will be interest. I use GPC under MinGW on Windows 98SE. Is it known issue? Question: Is there a program for Windows to analyze the content of PE executables and cleaning out the rubbish? Thanks, Peter __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/

4 5

Re: huge exe size
by Peter Norton 23 Jan '04

23 Jan '04

Thanks all who answered on my question. But now a new question appears - does speed affected by this rubbish in exe? Does all those died links works like a brake? All "big" is associates in my brain with "slow". Peter. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/

2 1

huge exe size
by Peter Norton 22 Jan '04

22 Jan '04

Hi all, I'm new in GNU Pascal and wonder the exe size compiler produces. Three lines Hello World source was blowed up to the 349 KB (!) exe. Stripped down (with -s) the executable is still big - 247 KB. The same source compiled with VirtualPascal's compiler is 11 KB exe. 20 times smaller! Am I doing something wrong? Thank in advance, Peter __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/

5 5

Re: [RESEND] gcc 3.3.3/3.4 compatibility
by Waldek Hebisch 21 Jan '04

21 Jan '04

Thorsten Glaser wrote: > > Now I retrieved a recent tarball and find gcc 3.3 "not production > quality" - the tarball's fairly old though. > > I'd like to ask whether, when gcc 3.3.3 or even 3.4 comes out > (does anybody know approximate dates?), it's likely or not to > be fully supported? > Mostly, the issue is: we have an i386 and a sparc port, and gcc 3.2.3 > at the moment. I don't want to write a gcc 3.2 configuration for sparc, > as the 3.3 format is different (eg. with CPP_PREDEFINES), and can't > take one from somewhere else and just modify it, because the gcc config > still assumes it's a.out on openbsd; the openbsd people itself just started > work on integrating gcc 3.3.2 into their tree (however not, unless us, as > the system compiler - they still use gcc 2.95, which is just a fallback > compiler for us). > The most recent gpc (alpha) relase is gpc-20030830. ATM gpc based on gcc-3.3.x is still less tested then other gpc versions. Also, there are known problems: a) in 3.3 CPP_PREDEFINES are no present. gpc has own preprocessor which on given platform is supposed to have the same set of predefined symbols as C preprocessor -- with 3.3 this is broken. b) `gpc' program contains a spec parser. This parser does not accept some constructs accepted by gcc-3.3 c) recently, there are misterious build failures on ia64 and alpha Concerning 3.4: I have patches needed to build gpc with gcc-3.4 (december 15 version). Resulting gpc passed all its regression tests. However, besides a) and b) above there are problems with command line handling. Also, the build process requires manual corrections. It is hard to give any specific date when the problems will be resolved. AFAIK Frank Heckenbach is in the process of rewriting preprecessor, to integrate it into the back-end, which will solve a). Note that the impact of a) and b) depend on target platform, it can be almost harmless (on Linux) or disastrous (if platform dependent predefines are needed to choose correct code). -- Waldek Hebisch hebisch(a)math.uni.wroc.pl

2 1

Re: [RESEND] gcc 3.3.3/3.4 compatibility
by J. David Bryan 16 Jan '04

16 Jan '04

On 15 Jan 2004 at 19:11, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Now I retrieved a recent tarball and find gcc 3.3 "not production > quality" - the tarball's fairly old though. I don't know the specific reason for the inclusion of that statement, but I have been using gpc-20030830 built with gcc-3.3.2 (ix86-mingw) without problems. I don't use gpc extensively, but this configuration passes 99.5% of the test suite, and the few failures appear to be platform-related, rather than code generation problems. -- Dave

1 0

Mac 10.3 Project Builder question
by Russell McGaha 15 Jan '04

15 Jan '04

How's the integration coming; if it's working, are there any doc.s on how to use it; if it's not working, how may I help (if I can). Russell --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]

2 1

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

Gpc