Gpc February 2002

gpc@gnu.de

42 participants
71 discussions

StringUtils, FileUtils
by Frank Heckenbach 31 May '02

31 May '02

Hi, in the current GPC version, I've included a StringUtils unit for general string handling routines (on a higher level than the built-in and RTS routines). Up to now, it only contains routines for a string hash table, but I'm planning to add some more routines. Perhaps some of you also have some routines to contribute (or features to request). Conditions for inclusion into this unit should be, IMHO: - Generally useful (not meant specifically for a certain program or something), - self-contained (not relying on an external library etc.), - new functionality compared to the existing routines (whereas the same or similar functionality under a different interface for compatibility purposes should go into other units, like GPCUtil for compatibility to `Turbo Power' units), - and, of course, compilable with the current GPC version, portable, bug-free, etc. ;-) The same goes for the FileUtils unit which has been there for some months already. Frank -- Frank Heckenbach, frank(a)g-n-u.de, http://fjf.gnu.de/ GPC To-Do list, latest features, fixed bugs: http://agnes.dida.physik.uni-essen.de/~gnu-pascal/todo.html

2 10

Re: Problems with pexecutedemo.pas
by da Silva, Joe 28 Feb '02

28 Feb '02

Compiles fine for me, with DJGPP GPC 20011222 (gpc --automake pexecutedemo.pas). However, AFAIK, you must install the GCC compiler too, so I assume that's what your problem is. Joe. > -----Original Message----- > From: Preben Mikael Bohn [SMTP:preben_bohn@yahoo.com] > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 8:11 PM > To: gpc(a)gnu.de > Subject: Problems with pexecutedemo.pas > > Hi all > > I just tried to compile pexecutedemo.pas from > http://agnes.dida.physik.uni-essen.de/~gnu-pascal/pexecutedemo.pas > with my installation of GNU Pascal, however I get the following > error: > > [beh@musvit test]$ gpc PExecuteDemo.p --automake > <command line>: warning: "system" re-asserted > <command line>: warning: "cpu" re-asserted > <command line>: warning: "machine" re-asserted > cpp: -lang-c: linker input file unused since linking not done > gpc: installation problem, cannot exec `cc1': No such file or > directory > gpc1: gpc exited with status 1 > gpc1: gpc exited with status 1 > > I use version 20011222 of gpc, and I have installed it locally > (i.e. on my own user account) without installing the C-compiler... > > Other (simple) programs seems to work fine, but I havn't testet > that many... Any ideas what is going wrong? > > Best regards > > Preben Bohn > > ===== > Denne signature er et fuldstændigt spild af tre a'er, > tre b'er, seks d'er, syvogfyrre e'er, otte f'er, seks g'er, > to h'er, otte i'er, fire k'er, fire l'er, tre m'er, > syv n'er, ti o'er, tre p'er, femogtredive r'er, tolv s'er, > tyve t'er, tre u'er, seks v'er, fem y'er og to æ'er > - Preben Bohn > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Everything you'll ever need on one web page > from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts > http://uk.my.yahoo.com

1 0

Problems with pexecutedemo.pas
by Preben Mikael Bohn 28 Feb '02

28 Feb '02

Hi all I just tried to compile pexecutedemo.pas from http://agnes.dida.physik.uni-essen.de/~gnu-pascal/pexecutedemo.pas with my installation of GNU Pascal, however I get the following error: [beh@musvit test]$ gpc PExecuteDemo.p --automake <command line>: warning: "system" re-asserted <command line>: warning: "cpu" re-asserted <command line>: warning: "machine" re-asserted cpp: -lang-c: linker input file unused since linking not done gpc: installation problem, cannot exec `cc1': No such file or directory gpc1: gpc exited with status 1 gpc1: gpc exited with status 1 I use version 20011222 of gpc, and I have installed it locally (i.e. on my own user account) without installing the C-compiler... Other (simple) programs seems to work fine, but I havn't testet that many... Any ideas what is going wrong? Best regards Preben Bohn ===== Denne signature er et fuldstÃ¦ndigt spild af tre a'er, tre b'er, seks d'er, syvogfyrre e'er, otte f'er, seks g'er, to h'er, otte i'er, fire k'er, fire l'er, tre m'er, syv n'er, ti o'er, tre p'er, femogtredive r'er, tolv s'er, tyve t'er, tre u'er, seks v'er, fem y'er og to Ã¦'er - Preben Bohn __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com

1 0

Re: gcc3+gpc working yet?
by da Silva, Joe 25 Feb '02

25 Feb '02

Just out of curiousity, how does one interpret that strange URL you have given? All it does for me is produce a "Host not found" error. Joe. > -----Original Message----- > From: Frank Heckenbach [SMTP:frank@g-n-u.de] > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 1:32 PM > To: gpc(a)gnu.de > Subject: Re: gcc3+gpc working yet? > > da Silva, Joe wrote: > > > > From: Matthias Klose [SMTP:doko@cs.tu-berlin.de] > > > > > > and will probably get some serious priority, after gpc-2.1 is > released. > > > > > > did you volunteer working on it? > > > > No, this is just from the recent discussions about gcc-3 compatibility > > on this list (eg., Frank's posting of Fri 15/02/02 17:47). > > Perhaps I wasn't clear: I am *not* going to do the bulk of the work. > Though I see some advantages in advancing to gcc-3, there are many > more important issues for me to work on. The same probably applies > to Peter -- except for the really difficult parts (which he'll > probably have to do since he's the only one who can do them). > > So whether and when it gets some "serious priority" depends to a > large extend on whether/when someone else will volunteer to help. > > > Unfortunately, my expertise in GPC's inner workings and compilers > > in general is very poor, as I have mentioned on a previous occasion. > > I hope some day this will improve. > > Perhaps this is a good chance to improve it. Most of the jobs I've > described in <200202150646.HAA04772@@goedel.fjf.gnu.de> don't > require knowledge of the internals, and in fact one might get some > knowledge while doing them (provided, of course, one is not allergic > to seeing some C code ;-). > > Frank > > -- > Frank Heckenbach, frank(a)g-n-u.de, http://fjf.gnu.de/, 7977168E > GPC To-Do list, latest features, fixed bugs: > http://agnes.dida.physik.uni-essen.de/~gnu-pascal/todo.html

3 2

Re: gcc3+gpc working yet?
by da Silva, Joe 25 Feb '02

25 Feb '02

No, this is just from the recent discussions about gcc-3 compatibility on this list (eg., Frank's posting of Fri 15/02/02 17:47). Unfortunately, my expertise in GPC's inner workings and compilers in general is very poor, as I have mentioned on a previous occasion. I hope some day this will improve. Joe. > -----Original Message----- > From: Matthias Klose [SMTP:doko@cs.tu-berlin.de] > Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 9:55 AM > To: da Silva, Joe > Cc: 'gpc(a)gnu.de' > Subject: Re: gcc3+gpc working yet? > > da Silva, Joe writes: > > Believe it or not, the many recent messages with "gcc-3+" in their > > title, started with a discussion of gcc3 compatibility issues, including > > the "current state of affairs", so this is certainly being looked into > > and will probably get some serious priority, after gpc-2.1 is released. > > did you volunteer working on it?

2 1

GNU Pascal and Borland Pascal
by Tim Ledgerwood 24 Feb '02

24 Feb '02

Hi Anybody still working on this? I am a windows developer, using Borland Delphi to develop a project. I have a code snippet that looks like it was developed in GNP - I need to convert it to run under Borland Pascal. The coding is for a static huffmann compression routine - and I can find such coding nowehere else on the web - lots of dynamic encoding, but no static ... PS - the links to the GNP Compiler and Docs are broken. Anyway, thanks Tim Ledgerwood tim(a)stowe.co.za

2 1

Re: gcc3+gpc working yet?
by da Silva, Joe 21 Feb '02

21 Feb '02

Believe it or not, the many recent messages with "gcc-3+" in their title, started with a discussion of gcc3 compatibility issues, including the "current state of affairs", so this is certainly being looked into and will probably get some serious priority, after gpc-2.1 is released. Joe. > -----Original Message----- > From: strobe anarkhos [SMTP:anarkhos@mac.com] > Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 9:26 AM > To: gpc(a)gnu.de > Subject: gcc3+gpc working yet? > > Has anybody tried to hammer gpc into gcc3? > > Apple is planning to move to gcc3 and cease support for 2.95x. They have > already dumped a huge load of patches in the Darwin CVS to make everything > gcc3 friendly and have cleaned up stuff like ObjC, ObjC++, gpj, g77, etc. > This will be a relief since 2.95x was a huge hack job of various parts > (NeXT's cc, gcc 2.7, MPW, etc.) and hopefully this will clean out a lot of > the rot. Unfortunately gpc isn't compatible with gcc3. > > Mac OS X is the perfect Pascal platform: > > * One of the two major APIs has Pascal interfaces, specifically Carbon. > Even though the library is likely written entirely in C, all the functions > are extern pascal and the strings are pascal strings. > > * Project Builder, a free graphical IDE, could be modified for Pascal. > Project Builder uses programs like jam (which in tern uses compilers like > gcc and javac) and gdb, parsing their output so if you click on an error, > it highlights the error in the source file. It also combines all the > resources to make executable graphical bundles. > > * Interface Builder was modified by Apple to support Carbon apps and so > should also work with Pascal Carbon development. Interface Builder is a > graphical app which allows developers to edit the layout of controls, > views, menus, windows, menus, panels, etc. A Carbon app then only has to > make simple calls to the abstract utility library. If you wish I can show > some example C code. > > Think of the possibilities |-)

2 1

Re: pointers (was: gcc-3+)
by da Silva, Joe 21 Feb '02

21 Feb '02

Yeah, "stored" and "referenced" seem okay. Other possibility is "master" and "slave". Anyway, as they say : "We'll cross that bridge when we come to it." (ie. I guess there's no need to worry about these details unless this concept looks like going ahead). Joe. > -----Original Message----- > From: Markus Gerwinski [SMTP:markus@gerwinski.de] > Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 11:31 PM > To: da Silva, Joe > Cc: 'gpc(a)gnu.de' > Subject: Re: pointers (was: gcc-3+) > > Hi folks, > > da Silva, Joe wrote: > > 1. I wonder if the words "store" and "reference" are complementary? > > Is complementarity a demand here? Clear distinction's sufficient, I > think... > > > How about "primary" and "secondary" instead? Or something else? > > This is subjective, but I'm not sure if the word "store" would "read" > > very well in the following suggested syntax (looks too much like a > > verb;-) : > > Agreed, but IMO "primary" and "secondary" are too general words to really > describe the use of the pointers. What about "stored" and "referenced"? > > type > pointer = ^integer; > pointer2 = stored ^integer; > pointer3 = referenced ^integer; > > Cheers > > Markus

1 0

Re: gcc-3+ (PS)
by da Silva, Joe 21 Feb '02

21 Feb '02

On reflection, perhaps I haven't been clear enough about this issue. To elaborate, some examples : a) procedure a (p : store pointer); --- wrong. b) procedure b (var p: store pointer); --- right. c) procedure c (p : reference pointer); --- right. d) procedure d (var p: reference pointer); --- right. e) c (a_store_pointer); --- right (assuming type compatibility). This all follows from the rules previously defined about the properties/restrictions of having distinct "store" and "reference" pointers. Hope that clears things up. Joe. > -----Original Message----- > From: da Silva, Joe > Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 3:48 PM > To: 'gpc(a)gnu.de' > Subject: RE: gcc-3+ > > OK then, Frank is wrong. <G> > > Given the rules applying to "store" pointers, they can be passed as > "var" parameters only. There is precedent for this type of restriction, > ie. file variables. > > Joe. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Frank Heckenbach [SMTP:frank@g-n-u.de] > Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 2:29 PM > To: gpc(a)gnu.de > Subject: Re: gcc-3+ > > da Silva, Joe wrote: > > > Frank is right. Just like you can't have "file" value parameters, > you > > also can't have "store pointer" value parameters, only var > parameters. > > That's not what I said! I said that it's not uncommon to pass a > directly allocated (i.e., "store") pointer by value, so I'm not > convinced of the distinction between store and reference pointers. I > wrote: > > : Though I'm not sure why the distinction between store and > reference > : pointers is necessary. Why not make all pointers the same, and > when > : one pointer to an object is disposed of, all the other ones are > : invalidated? > > Frank > > -- > Frank Heckenbach, frank(a)g-n-u.de, http://fjf.gnu.de/, 7977168E > GPC To-Do list, latest features, fixed bugs: > http://agnes.dida.physik.uni-essen.de/~gnu-pascal/todo.html

1 0

Re: gcc-3+
by da Silva, Joe 21 Feb '02

21 Feb '02

OK then, Frank is wrong. <G> Given the rules applying to "store" pointers, they can be passed as "var" parameters only. There is precedent for this type of restriction, ie. file variables. Joe. > -----Original Message----- > From: Frank Heckenbach [SMTP:frank@g-n-u.de] > Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 2:29 PM > To: gpc(a)gnu.de > Subject: Re: gcc-3+ > > da Silva, Joe wrote: > > > Frank is right. Just like you can't have "file" value parameters, you > > also can't have "store pointer" value parameters, only var parameters. > > That's not what I said! I said that it's not uncommon to pass a > directly allocated (i.e., "store") pointer by value, so I'm not > convinced of the distinction between store and reference pointers. I > wrote: > > : Though I'm not sure why the distinction between store and reference > : pointers is necessary. Why not make all pointers the same, and when > : one pointer to an object is disposed of, all the other ones are > : invalidated? > > Frank > > -- > Frank Heckenbach, frank(a)g-n-u.de, http://fjf.gnu.de/, 7977168E > GPC To-Do list, latest features, fixed bugs: > http://agnes.dida.physik.uni-essen.de/~gnu-pascal/todo.html

1 0

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 February 2002