Gpc

gpc@gnu.de

5400 discussions

Re: gpc under SunOS or Solaris
by J.J. van der Heijden 01 Oct '96

01 Oct '96

On Mon, 30 Sep 1996 09:38:13 -0700, Friedrich Fahnert <fritz(a)engg2.mobinfo.com> wrote: >J.J. van der Heijden wrote: >> >> On Sat, 21 Sep 1996 15:57:22 +0200 (MET DST, >> Peter Gerwinski <peter(a)agnes.dida.physik.uni-essen.de> wrote: >> >> >According to Friedrich Fahnert: >> >> I managed to get version 1.2-2.7.2 compiled on both, but neither works >> >> very well. On Solaris gpc1 gets a fatal signal, and an internal >> >> compiler error, when compiling certain programs. On SunOS, it seems >> >> to compile properly, but it dumps core when linking. >> > >> >> I fixed the linking problems. Yes Peter, they _were_ there :-( They just >> didn't show in EMX. >> >> JanJaap >> > >Did you make some patches? How about new binaries? > > I cannot build new binaries for every platform each time I change something -- I would spend all my time building binaries. And I don't have access to a Solaris box anyway. But I can publish the patch, then you can build a new binary yourself. There are some more things that have to be done before a new "all-platform" release. Groeten, JanJaap --- "Nothing shocks me, I'm a scientist", Indiana Jones

1 0

Re: System calls
by J.J. van der Heijden 30 Sep '96

30 Sep '96

On Mon, 30 Sep 1996 02:03:07 -0400 (EDT), John Michael Black <jm_black(a)csunix1.lvc.edu> wrote: >This may sound like a dumb question. Is there a predefined routine for >executing O/S commands built into gpc? (like C's universal "system()" >routine.) If not, what would be the easiest way to go about this in unix? > >(I suppose I could use the C routine itself as an external procedure, as a >last resort...) > There's no builtin system() call because this is not part of the Pascal standard. But there is nothing to stop you from using your C-lib's system() call. In C: int system (const char *string); In Pascal: function system(s: cstring): integer; C; function system; external; (I didn't try this, but have done simular things with fork() and others in the past) Someday, we should get some units/modules to implement this ... oh, well, keep dreaming... JanJaap --- "Nothing shocks me, I'm a scientist", Indiana Jones

1 0

System calls
by John Michael Black 30 Sep '96

30 Sep '96

This may sound like a dumb question. Is there a predefined routine for executing O/S commands built into gpc? (like C's universal "system()" routine.) If not, what would be the easiest way to go about this in unix? (I suppose I could use the C routine itself as an external procedure, as a last resort...) -j

1 0

Re: DosFile.pas workaround for the CrLF-bug under old DOS
by JanJaap van der Heijden 27 Sep '96

27 Sep '96

At 03:40 PM 9/20/96 +0200, you wrote: > >{ BP-like file operations for binary files } >{ simple workaround for the CRLF-bug in GCC/GPC } >{ Sven Hilscher - sven(a)rufus.central.de } > > I can see the use of functions with a borland-compatible syntax, like assign(), but fail to see the link with CRLF problems. I think I fixed those. var f: text is now opened in text mode. A line is terminated with CRLF in DOS, while type byte = __byte__ integer; bytefile = file of byte; var g: bytefile; is opened in binary mode and $0A is not silently converted to $0A$0D. I think this solves the problems. If you think otherwise, let me know. JanJaap -- The latest & greates in software, hardware and manswear -- Bono Vox (U2)

2 1

Re: gpc under SunOS or Solaris
by J.J. van der Heijden 24 Sep '96

24 Sep '96

On Sat, 21 Sep 1996 15:57:22 +0200 (MET DST, Peter Gerwinski <peter(a)agnes.dida.physik.uni-essen.de> wrote: >According to Friedrich Fahnert: >> I managed to get version 1.2-2.7.2 compiled on both, but neither works >> very well. On Solaris gpc1 gets a fatal signal, and an internal >> compiler error, when compiling certain programs. On SunOS, it seems >> to compile properly, but it dumps core when linking. > I fixed the linking problems. Yes Peter, they _were_ there :-( They just didn't show in EMX. JanJaap --- Someone once asked me if they could use Open Windows on a Mac. I said, "I don't know. Let's find out." I went to the Mac, opened the window and threw out the Mac. "Yep, You can use Open Windows on a Mac." bofh(a)RedDragon.Empire.Net (Psycho Sysadmin)

1 0

MAN page?
by John Michael Black 23 Sep '96

23 Sep '96

Has there ever been written a man page for the unix versions? Just basic command syntax & options would be enough to start. I'd offer to do it if I knew how. :( -john

2 2

Functions/strings
by Peter Gerwinski 23 Sep '96

23 Sep '96

According to John Michael Black: > I remember reading in an older version's GUIDE that functions returning > strings would not work. Was this corrected with 2.7.2? Yes. Peter e-mail: peter.gerwinski(a)uni-essen.de home address: D\"usseldorfer Str. 35, 45145 Essen, Germany WWW: http://agnes.dida.physik.uni-essen.de/~peter/

1 0

MAN page?
by Peter Gerwinski 23 Sep '96

23 Sep '96

According to John Michael Black: > Has there ever been written a man page for the unix versions? Just basic > command syntax & options would be enough to start. No. > I'd offer to do it if I knew how. :( That would be great. Unfortunately, I don't know either how to do this. Anybody here who knows? Peter e-mail: peter.gerwinski(a)uni-essen.de home address: D\"usseldorfer Str. 35, 45145 Essen, Germany WWW: http://agnes.dida.physik.uni-essen.de/~peter/

1 0

Functions/strings
by John Michael Black 23 Sep '96

23 Sep '96

I remember reading in an older version's GUIDE that functions returning strings would not work. Was this corrected with 2.7.2? -john

1 0

Re: some questions ...
by JanJaap van der Heijden 23 Sep '96

23 Sep '96

At 11:15 PM 9/22/96 +0200, you wrote: >Hi Sven, hi everybody, Hello :) > > >> Why is the boolean type internal so big (Integer) ? > >I could not reproduce this bug. Var B: Boolean; writeln ( Sizeof ( B ) ) >yields 1 on my machine. > >> Boolean should only use a bit - yes thats stupid, > This is not so stupid. A 32bit CPU accesses memory in 32bit chunks. It is possible to access a byte, but this is considerably slower. Accessing a bit would require accessing a 32bit word first, then bitshifting. All compilers make this speed v.s. memory-consumption tradeof in favor of speed, and GPC is no exception. For a 64 bit CPU, it's even worse: 63bits per boolean are "waisted". JanJaap -- The latest & greates in software, hardware and manswear -- Bono Vox (U2)

1 0

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