May 1997 - Gpc

Re: gpc.inf doesn't work [Was: Installed Alpha 04/20 - Can't link]
by Achim Kalwa 15 May '97

15 May '97

Hello! On Thu, 15 Mai 1997, Peter Gerwinski wrote: >According to Berend De Schouwer: [...] >> On a side note: >> gpc.inf doesn't work (no top node) >> But gpc.inf and gpc.i1 both reference and contain a top node. I >> can't see why "info --file gpc.inf" complains... >> >> gcc.inf/gcc.i1 look the same (at least in structure) and work. > >Something strange happened to the GPC documentation in that binary >distribution, sorry. I recompiled the info documentation on my system, >and now it's fine. I will correct this error when I will upload a new >binary DJGPP distribution once I will have solved that linking problem ... I have similar problems with the gpc-info files (gpc 950510) on my linux machine (2.0.29): "info gpc" says: "no manual entry for gpc" "info --file gpc.info" works fine. CU Achim

1 0

Re: Installed Alpha 04/20 - Can't link
by Peter Gerwinski 15 May '97

15 May '97

According to Berend De Schouwer: > On Sun, 11 May 1997, Peter Gerwinski wrote: > > I was sure that I am using v2.01, but I re-installed my `djdev201.zip' > > and `gcc2721b.zip', thus the new Alpha gpc-970510 should definitly (?) > > be v2.01. > > BUT, "gpc -v" says "2.0(2.7.2.1)" and not an alpha version number. > Did I install it right? I think so. Yes, you did. I forgot to set up the alpha version number for djgpp (where it must be done manually.) > gpc2.0 (non alpha) used to work fine. (* GPC 2.0 was compiled by Jan-Jaap, I think. ;*) > Well, gpc alpha 05/10 still says "ld: can't find djgpp.lnk" At least I can reproduce the error now by renaming "djgpp.lnk". As a workaround, I am posting my "djgpp.lnk" below; I will try to figure out what is going on here ... > "gcc -v" reports 2.7.2.1 and works. (compiles hello.c ;) > /djgpp/manifest has djdev201.mft, so I think I have djgpp v2.01. Same holds for my system. > I only started using djgpp after 2.01 came out. Is there any > other way to find out? (yes, seems like a newbie question ;) I join you in this question. > I checked my path, and djgpp's ld.exe seems to be the one that gets > executed (I also have fpk-pascal, which has an older version). > Is there any way I can check version numbers (compared to what?) of these? My BinUtils are 2.5.2 while README.1ST says that 2.7 is the current version for V2. Perhaps this is the problem? > On a side note: > gpc.inf doesn't work (no top node) > But gpc.inf and gpc.i1 both reference and contain a top node. I > can't see why "info --file gpc.inf" complains... > > gcc.inf/gcc.i1 look the same (at least in structure) and work. Something strange happened to the GPC documentation in that binary distribution, sorry. I recompiled the info documentation on my system, and now it's fine. I will correct this error when I will upload a new binary DJGPP distribution once I will have solved that linking problem ... According to Jan-Jaap van der Heijden: > To Peter: since this GPC is searching for this obsolete 'djgpp.lnk', I > assume you are indeed using v2.0. In that case you'd better upgrade to > 2.01 to stop this confusion. I believed I did, but obviously I didn't do it right. Some hints what I should do or check? 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 [970510] - http://home.pages.de/~gnu-pascal/ [970125] 8< ---- \djgpp\lib\djgpp.lnk ------------------------------------------------- OUTPUT_FORMAT("coff-go32") ENTRY(start) SECTIONS { .text 0x1000+SIZEOF_HEADERS : { *(.text) etext = . ; _etext = .; . = ALIGN(0x200); } .data ALIGN(0x200) : { djgpp_first_ctor = . ; *(.ctor) djgpp_last_ctor = . ; djgpp_first_dtor = . ; *(.dtor) djgpp_last_dtor = . ; *(.data) edata = . ; _edata = .; . = ALIGN(0x200); } .bss SIZEOF(.data) + ADDR(.data) : { *(.bss) *(COMMON) end = . ; _end = .; . = ALIGN(0x200); } }

2 1

New gpc-970510 for DJGPP (Was: Installed Alpha 04/20 - Can't link)
by Peter Gerwinski 15 May '97

15 May '97

According to Jan-Jaap van der Heijden: > > Unfortunately, GPC (gpc.exe) reads it's rules from "specs.gpc", which, in > Peter's alpha DJ binaries, still referred to "djgpp.lnk" I am uploading a new binary distribution for DJGPP which has Jan-Jaap's `specs.gpc' and simultaneously fixes the bug in the info documentation. (But it still versions to 2.0, not to 970610 as promised, because I was too lazy to recompile GPC.) > Since Peter probably installed djdev201 over djdev200, he probably has > both "djgpp.lnk" and "djgpp.djl", hence didn't notice the problem. Correct. But now I will remove `djgpp.lnk'. 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 [970510] - http://home.pages.de/~gnu-pascal/ [970125]

1 0

Re: Installed Alpha 04/20 - Can't link
by Peter Gerwinski 14 May '97

14 May '97

According to Jan-Jaap van der Heijden: > To Peter: since this GPC is searching for this obsolete 'djgpp.lnk', I > assume you are indeed using v2.0. In that case you'd better upgrade to > 2.01 to stop this confusion. I was sure that I am using v2.01, but I re-installed my `djdev201.zip' and `gcc2721b.zip', thus the new Alpha gpc-970510 should definitly (?) be v2.01. 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 [970510] - http://home.pages.de/~gnu-pascal/ [970125]

4 3

New Alpha: gpc-970510
by Peter Gerwinski 10 May '97

10 May '97

Hello! Here again is a new GPC alpha version. Changes since gpc-970420: General news: * `Absolute' now works in declaring statements, too. (Declaring statements are variable declarations in a function's statement part, a GPC extension. `Absolute' variables are a Borland extension supported by GPC.) * Initialization with `=' now has priority with respect to comparision. (Comparisions usually don't occur in initializers.) This means that BP-style typed constants now work as expected. In `--extended-pascal' mode, initialization with `=' is turned OFF, and comparision in initializers works like before. * Added/corrected some dialect-specific warnings. * With `--automake', non-Pascal input files may now occur before the first Pascal input file. * First fragments of a reference manual exist now: GPC's online Texinfo documentation now contains more-ore-less complete information about Integer types - sorted alphabetically from `Byte' to `Word'. * The alpha version number, "970510" for this release, is now output instead of "2.0" when `gpc' is invoked with the `-v' option. I hope this does not break anything ... Bug fixes: * `Page' now can be called with zero or one parameter. * Removed some wrong warnings from `-Wall'. * Parameter lists of methods now may contain a reference to the object they are methods of: MyObject = object Procedure Foo ( Var Bar: MyObject ); end (* MyObject *); * Units exporting different parts of the same object hierarchy work now. You still get a warning, but code works. (When a derived object is exported, complete information about the parent is exported, too. When two Units exported the same parent like this, GPC complained about incompatible definitions of the same identifier.) * Errorneous parent types in object declarations no more crash GPC. * Borland-style #27 character constants now work as the first thing in a line, too. (This bug usually showed up in `case' statements.) Borland Pascal: * Procedural variables work. They can be written like in Borland Pascal, or with the type names only. The same holds for pointers to functions. * ^A .. ^Z character constants work. (Even better than with BP itself.;) * The "link directive" (*$L foo.o *) or (*$L /usr/lib/libfoo.a *) works. As a GPC extension, you also can specify (*$L foo.pas *) or (*$L foo.c *): With `--automake', GPC compiles the specified source if necessary and links the object code. Without `--automake', GPC still links the `.o' file corresponding to the given source name. * `SizeOf' applied to object variables works now. The size is read at run time from the VMT. The object must be initialized. * `TypeOf' applied to object variables works now, too. As a GPC extension, you can explicitly assign a value to "TypeOf ( MyObj )" if extended syntax is ON (*$X+*). Extended Pascal: * Schemata work. (-: Well ... my tiny test programs work. This involves parameter passing and `new'ing pointers to undiscriminated Schemata. However I am not very experienced with Schemata, so I cannot give any warranty for them. (Which does not mean that I would give any other warranty, either expressed or implied, ... you know.;) Please help me to test them! I took special care that the String parameter stuff did not break due to the implementation of Schemata. (Read: Passing of String parameters might be broken now; please check.;-) One nice thing: `SizeOf' works with Strings and Schemata. When `p' is a pointer to a String or Schema, `SizeOf ( p^ )' looks into the String or Schema pointed to and determines the correct size at run time. The source - a diff against gpc-970420 - is being uploaded to ftp://agnes.dida.physik.uni-essen.de/gnu-pascal/alpha/ together with binaries for DOS (DJGPP), DOS and OS/2 (EMX), Linux (ELF), and FreeBSD. Thanks to Abimbola A. Olowofoyeku, Frank Heckenbach, Jan-Jaap van der Heijden, Kevin A. Foss, and Markus Gerwinski for finding the bugs. And again: Is anybody interested to help to document all this? For example, to write a list of Extended Pascal [Borland Pascal] features which work [do not yet work] in GPC which replace the somehow outdated chapter "Extensions", "Extended Pascal", and "Borland Pascal" in the on-line manual? Or to complete and improve the description of the compiler options in the chapter "Invoking GPC"? If you do something in this direction, just post it here. Greetings, Peter Peter Gerwinski [670510], Essen, Germany, free physicist and programmer peter.gerwinski(a)uni-essen.de - http://home.pages.de/~peter.gerwinski/ [970201] maintainer GNU Pascal [970510] - http://home.pages.de/~gnu-pascal/ [970125]

1 0

Installed Alpha 04/20 - Can't link
by Berend De Schouwer 09 May '97

09 May '97

Hi I believe this was mentioned before... I installed alpha 4/20 (without making a backup, tch..) on djgpp v2 I can compile and get .o files, but the linking stage doesn't find djgpp.lnk (I assume gpc does "ld @djgpp.lnk") at some stage. I don't mind typing this myself, but I haven't got a sample .lnk file to work with (silly me ;). Any help will be appreciated. Cheers Berend De Schouwer P.S. gcc works fine.

2 1

Re: Portability questions (Arrays)
by Peter Gerwinski 08 May '97

08 May '97

According to Frank Heckenbach: > [...] > then 1 byte after a will be "wasted" though b could fit into it? It has to be > so if sizeof(a)=4, if someone does "move(...,a,sizeof(a))". Exactly. 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 [970420] - http://home.pages.de/~gnu-pascal/ [970125]

1 0

Re: Short Strings, Schema discriminants, UCSD Pascal
by Peter Gerwinski 08 May '97

08 May '97

According to Frank Heckenbach: > > > [...] present or planned for gpc? [...] > > Yes. > Planned, this is? Doesn't seem to be present (or different names?). Planned. Sorry, I unconsciously made a typical mathematician's mistake ... :-) 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 [970420] - http://home.pages.de/~gnu-pascal/ [970125]

1 0

Re: TFDDs - customizing `writeln' (Was: Legal Change in GPC ?)
by Frank Heckenbach 08 May '97

08 May '97

Peter Gerwinski wrote: > If somebody who knows C wants to implement this for GPC, here are > some ideas: > We are still looking for somebody who wants to implement a portable, > Borland-compatible `CRT'. (But our `Graph' Unit, "BGI2GRX", works on > Linux at least.:) I'd have some ideas for both, I only need one thing: time... -- perhaps in late summer/autumn, let's wait and see... -- unless someone wants to do it earlier. (Actually, I'd probably need some help on portability questions and other things, we'll see...) -- 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

Re: Portability questions (Arrays)
by Frank Heckenbach 08 May '97

08 May '97

Now, after Peter's and Berend's answers I'm a bit confused... Could someone clear things up for me, please? Note, I'm talking about gpc, not about other compilers or about the standard. Peter Gerwinski wrote: > Why is this so, e.g. with an array of something which has 3 bytes? > > > Program Test; > > Type > r = packed record > x: ShortWord; > y: Byte; > end (* r *); > > Var > x: packed array [ 1..1000 ] of r; > > begin > writeln ( SizeOf ( x ) ); > writeln ( SizeOf ( x [ 1 ] ) ); > end. > > > The output is 4000 and ... 4. To avoid alignment problems in an "array > of r", the record `r' has size 4, not 3. BTW: Does this mean if you have var a:r; b:byte; then 1 byte after a will be "wasted" though b could fit into it? It has to be so if sizeof(a)=4, if someone does "move(...,a,sizeof(a))". -- 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