Gpc April 1997

gpc@gnu.de

24 participants
111 discussions

Re: New Alpha
by The African Chief 15 Apr '97

15 Apr '97

On Tue, 15 Apr 1997 16:29:10 +0100 David Fiddes <D.J.Fiddes(a)hw.ac.uk> wrote: >>I am writing a shell for GPC - "GPCC.PAS" (in Borland Pascal). All that >it >>does is to parse the command line, parse the source file to see whether >>it is a unit/module or a program (and pass the necessary "-o" or "-c" >>switch accordingly, read a file called "GPCC.CFG", add any switches >found >>in it to the list of parameters obtained from the command line, and then, >>run "GPC" with the whole list of parameters. >> >I thought that gpc was similar to gcc(I'm not that familiar with gpc -- it >won't build with the cygnus source tree I use)..isn't gpc.exe like gcc.exe >in that it's just a shell for ccp.exe and cc1.exe, as.exe, ld.exe >,etc,etc. I presume that GPC is a shell to GPC1, or GPC-CPP, or, to both of them. I am operating from the point of view of someone from a BP background, who does not understand MAKE files or such, but who is comfortable with the idea of a .CFG file that contains all the parameters you wish to always pass (splitting infinitives here?) to a command line compiler. GPCC (the name is insignificant - perhaps it should be GPCS - for "GPC shell") simply provides this facility. It also served the purpose of presenting me with an opportunity to write GPC implementations of many Borland Pascal runtime library functions. This should increase GPC's "Borland" compatibility. >It would be just as easy to write a whole new gnubpc.exe shell...? It would >be cleaner perhaps... This is really what I am trying to do - but I don't want to make it just a Borland extension shell, so it is just a program that reads a file, parses the command line, and sends everything to GPC.EXE. The implementations of Borland RTL functions are in UNITs, which will be usable by everybody (I hope). Presumably, somebody someday will convert the UNITs to EP modules. Best regards, The Chief Dr Abimbola A. Olowofoyeku (The African Chief, and the Great Elephant) Author of: Chief's Installer Pro v3.12 for Win16 and Win32. Homepage: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/African_Chief/ E-mail: laa12(a)cc.keele.ac.uk

1 0

Re: New Alpha
by David Fiddes 15 Apr '97

15 Apr '97

>I am writing a shell for GPC - "GPCC.PAS" (in Borland Pascal). All that it >does is to parse the command line, parse the source file to see whether >it is a unit/module or a program (and pass the necessary "-o" or "-c" >switch accordingly, read a file called "GPCC.CFG", add any switches found >in it to the list of parameters obtained from the command line, and then, >run "GPC" with the whole list of parameters. > I thought that gpc was similar to gcc(I'm not that familiar with gpc -- it won't build with the cygnus source tree I use)..isn't gpc.exe like gcc.exe in that it's just a shell for ccp.exe and cc1.exe, as.exe, ld.exe ,etc,etc. It would be just as easy to write a whole new gnubpc.exe shell...? It would be cleaner perhaps... Dave Dave Fiddes, CALM Software Production Officer Department of Mathematics, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh email D.J.Fiddes(a)hw.ac.uk - Tel: 0131-451-3251

1 0

Re: New Alpha
by The African Chief 15 Apr '97

15 Apr '97

On Tue, 15 Apr 1997 14:45:40 +0200 Frank Heckenbach <heckenb(a)mi.uni-erlangen.de> wrote: [..] > >A minor "problem": If I compile a program with such a compiler switch with TP, >TP complains about an "Invalid compiler directive". Is there a way (perhaps >a simpler way than conditional defines) to supply the options so that gpc >will recognize them and TP will ignore them? I am writing a shell for GPC - "GPCC.PAS" (in Borland Pascal). All that it does is to parse the command line, parse the source file to see whether it is a unit/module or a program (and pass the necessary "-o" or "-c" switch accordingly, read a file called "GPCC.CFG", add any switches found in it to the list of parameters obtained from the command line, and then, run "GPC" with the whole list of parameters. I have had to write a number of "Borland" functions and procedures for GPC to make this program compile and work okay under GPC as well. The program can now be compiled under BP or GPC and works equally well under both. These (with full source code) will be released as soon as I am finished with what I am doing, as part of my contribution to GPC. Is anybody interested in all this? My current GPCC.CFG looks like this (lines beginning with a semi-colon are treated as comments and are ignored by GPCC); ; ---------------------------- GPCC.CFG begins -------------------------- ; full optimization; 486 optimized -O3 -m486 ; strip the symbol table -s ; "make" units --automake="-O3 --automake" ; use extended syntax --extended-syntax ; pack (align) all records --pack-struct ; ---------------------- GPCC.CFG ends --------------------------- I intend to make a number of template GPCC.CFG file (e.g., for EP, ISO, etc.) before releasing the stuff. Best regards, The Chief Dr Abimbola A. Olowofoyeku (The African Chief, and the Great Elephant) Author of: Chief's Installer Pro v3.12 for Win16 and Win32. Homepage: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/African_Chief/ E-mail: laa12(a)cc.keele.ac.uk

1 0

Main distribution line (Was: How should ...)
by Frank Heckenbach 15 Apr '97

15 Apr '97

This goes back a few days... Peter Gerwinski wrote: > * GPC's configuration scripts are written using `autoconf'. > I have no idea how to implement such an option there. But even if > I had, it would disappear again when GPC will be integrated into > the main distribution line of the GNU compiler. Does this mean that gpc will then distributed widely and will be present on many (or most) systems? Now I had to make a version of my program in C because almost nobody had gpc installed - any hope that this situation will change? And are there any plans when this will happen - when gpc supports the standard(s) completely? -- Frank Heckenbach, Erlangen, Germany heckenb(a)mi.uni-erlangen.de Turbo Pascal: http://www.mi.uni-erlangen.de/~heckenb/programs.htm Internet links: http://www.mi.uni-erlangen.de/~heckenb/links.htm

2 1

Boolean operators (Was: Re: New Alpha)
by Frank Heckenbach 15 Apr '97

15 Apr '97

Berend de Boer wrote: > > * If statements and such now default to short-circuit operations. > > This can still be switched to complete evaluation using > > `--no-short-circuit', (*$B+*), or (*$no-short-circuit*). With > > `--standard-pascal' etc., the default becomes complete evaluation > > and can be switched to short circuit using `--short-circuit', > > (*$B-*), or (*$short-circuit*). > > > > (It is done this way because the cases where a program relies > >on > > complete evaluation of Boolean expressions are very rare; functions > > with side effects should not occur in such situations anyway because > > you cannot rely on the order of evaluation. OTOH, there are *many* > > programs which rely on short circuit evaluation.) > > I like to add that Extended Pascal has the or_else and and_then to force > short circuit evalutation. > > A quite clean solution IMHO. Indeed, I think this is good if one uses complete evaluation by default. However, I prefer to have short circuit evaluation by default. So what about similar operators to force complete evaluation - it would seem cleaner to me than using {$B+} ... {$B-}? -- Frank Heckenbach, Erlangen, Germany heckenb(a)mi.uni-erlangen.de Turbo Pascal: http://www.mi.uni-erlangen.de/~heckenb/programs.htm Internet links: http://www.mi.uni-erlangen.de/~heckenb/links.htm

1 0

Re: New Alpha
by Frank Heckenbach 15 Apr '97

15 Apr '97

Peter Gerwinski wrote: > * The GNU compiler's global configuration file `specs' (or `specs.gpc' > with DJGPP) now contains a line `*gpc1:' after which you can put > your site-wide default switches, e.g. > > *gpc1: > -fextended-pascal -ffield-widths -fno-clip-strings > Note that `specs' does not want `--foo' but `-ffoo'. BTW: You recently said that one has to use '-pedantic', not '-fpedantic' in specs. Is there a general rule when to use '-f...' and when simply '-...'? > * All command-line `--foobar' flags now can be given as compiler > directives. One example: > > (*$field-widths,NO-clip-strings,SetLimit=1024, AutoMake="-g -O3"*). Just to make sure: 'AutoMake="--foo"' means that '--foo' is used for the compilation of the units involved and the program itself, while 'AutoMake, --foo' would apply '--foo' only to the program. Is that right? A minor "problem": If I compile a program with such a compiler switch with TP, TP complains about an "Invalid compiler directive". Is there a way (perhaps a simpler way than conditional defines) to supply the options so that gpc will recognize them and TP will ignore them? What about compiler options for "-o foo", "foo.o" and/or "bar.c"? Are you working on them, or are they too difficult to implement? BTW: Is it legal (with the currect version) to use "gpc foo.c bar.pas"? I asked about this already in my mail about "Re: Linking directives..." on 3 Apr, but unfortunately got no replies. And another contribution to the GPC test suite... :-| The following program and unit cause the latest gpc to fail with SIGSEGV. It worked with a previous version of gpc: PROGRAM x; USES y; VAR v:t; BEGIN q(v) {or p(v) - both cause SIGSEGV} END. UNIT Y; INTERFACE TYPE t=ARRAY[0..1] OF Integer; PROCEDURE p(VAR v:t); PROCEDURE q(CONST v:t); IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE p(VAR v:t); BEGIN END; PROCEDURE q(CONST v:t); BEGIN END; END. -- Frank Heckenbach, Erlangen, Germany heckenb(a)mi.uni-erlangen.de Turbo Pascal: http://www.mi.uni-erlangen.de/~heckenb/programs.htm Internet links: http://www.mi.uni-erlangen.de/~heckenb/links.htm

1 0

GPC alpha 970412 win32 binary (cygwin32 b17.1) available.
by Jan-Jaap van der Heijden 13 Apr '97

13 Apr '97

Hello, The latest GNU Pascal alpha release is now available for the win32 platform at: ftp://agnes.dida.physik.uni-essen.de/home/janjaap/cygwin32/ Files in this directory: gpc-970412.i486-cygwin32-b17.1.zip Apr.12 snapshot binary of cygwin32 GPC. For a cygwin32-beta17.1 toolchain. devtools.i486-cygwin32-b17.1.zip For those who only want to do Pascal, it's a waist to download a complete toolchain from ftp.cygnus.com. This archive has all the tools (as, ld, libraries) needed to complete GPC. I also included some other tools (rcl etc.) and documentation in .hlp format. If you already have cygwin32-beta17.1 installed, you don't need this. Installation ------------ * create a subdirectory of your choice (`c:\gpcwin32') and unzip gpc-970412.i486-cygwin32-b17.1.zip and devtools.i486-cygwin32-b17.1.zip from there. Use a version of `unzip' that can handle long filenames, i.e. not PKunzip. * Add the directory where `gpc.exe' lives (`c:\gpcwin32\bin') to your path. * Set GCC_EXEC_PREFIX=C:\gpcwin32\lib\gcc-lib\ Beware of the trailing slash! * Set LIBRARY_PATH=c:\gpcwin32\lib;c:\gpcwin32\i386-cygwin32\lib Common problems --------------- These things often give problems: * Do NOT mix binaries from different beta's -- they are incompatible. * Be sure to have only one `cygwin.dll' in your path and it must be beta17.1 The symptoms of these are crashes, stack/register dumps and Windows telling you it cannot load a dll. Read the cygwin32 FAQ (http://www.cygnus.com/ or this directory) Most of the information also applies for GNU Pascal. And please, do not bother the people of the cygwin32 mailinglist if you have problems with GPC, send them to the gpc(a)hut.fi list instead. Have fun, JanJaap <j.j.vanderheijden(a)student.utwente.nl> --- The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from - Andrew Tanenbaum

1 0

Re: New Alpha: compiler directives
by Peter Gerwinski 13 Apr '97

13 Apr '97

According to Berend de Boer: > > [...] using an ISO form of pascal like standard-pascal or > extended-pascal, compiler directives are turned off by default and you > explicitly have to enable them? This is the case in some sense: You get warnings when you use compiler directives together with `--standard-pascal', `--extended-pascal', or `--object-pascal'. Use `--pedantic-errors' to turn these warnings into error messages. > My concern is the following: I've a team of programmers building an > extended pascal program. How can I be sure that they don't use some gpc > feature? I have the -extended-pascal directive to check if it's Extended > Pascal, but how can I check if they use some compiler directive in the > source to force the compiler doing something?? How can you check whether they really use the `--extended-pascal' switch? You have to stand behind them and watch what commands they type to compile. What about just saying them that they must not use compiler directives? BTW, the `--pedantic' switch is intended to check whether some code is *completely* portable. With `--pedantic', you get warnings about everything for which a Pascal compiler is known not to accept it. (* Read: You get warnings about just *everything*. :*) Greetings, Peter Dipl.-Phys. Peter Gerwinski, Essen, Germany, free physicist and programmer peter.gerwinski(a)uni-essen.de - http://home.pages.de/~peter.gerwinski/ [970201] maintainer GNU Pascal [970412] - http://home.pages.de/~gnu-pascal/ [970125]

1 0

New Alpha: compiler directives
by Berend de Boer 12 Apr '97

12 Apr '97

You wrote: > (* It seems that GPC will get more options than any other existing Pascal compiler ... :*) Absolutely true :-) But I'm not sure if I like this, but I hasten to add that I don't see a better way. My concern is the following: I've a team of programmers building an extended pascal program. How can I be sure that they don't use some gpc feature? I have the -extended-pascal directive to check if it's Extended Pascal, but how can I check if they use some compiler directive in the source to force the compiler doing something?? This particular directive very probably isn't supported by another Extended Pascal compiler, so I would like to automatically detect and forbid it's use. Let's add another compiler directive to disable compiler directives? :-) Or better maybe: using an ISO form of pascal like standard-pascal or extended-pascal, compiler directives are turned off by default and you explicitly have to enable them? This makes it easier by just compiling the source to see if it is portable. Groetjes, Berend.

1 0

Re: New Alpha
by Berend de Boer 12 Apr '97

12 Apr '97

You wrote: > * If statements and such now default to short-circuit operations. > This can still be switched to complete evaluation using > `--no-short-circuit', (*$B+*), or (*$no-short-circuit*). With > `--standard-pascal' etc., the default becomes complete evaluation > and can be switched to short circuit using `--short-circuit', > (*$B-*), or (*$short-circuit*). > > (It is done this way because the cases where a program relies >on > complete evaluation of Boolean expressions are very rare; functions > with side effects should not occur in such situations anyway because > you cannot rely on the order of evaluation. OTOH, there are *many* > programs which rely on short circuit evaluation.) I like to add that Extended Pascal has the or_else and and_then to force short circuit evalutation. A quite clean solution IMHO. Groetjes, Berend.

1 0

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
...
12
Older →

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 April 1997