Gpc April 2002

gpc@gnu.de

34 participants
54 discussions

Installing GPC on RedHat 7.2
by Preben Mikael Bohn 09 Apr '02

09 Apr '02

Hi all I have tried several times in the past to install GPC on linux with different degrees of success... :) Are there any RPM or binary distibutions for the newest GPC for RedHat 7.2? If not, what version of gcc is the preferred one to use in the compilation step at the time? Currently I have downloaded gcc-core-2.95.2.tar.gz and gpc-20020402.tar.gz from http://www.gnu-pascal.de/current/ I already have the RH7.2 standard gcc installed, and I'd like to install gpc for a user, not root... Best regards Preben Bohn ===== Lack of skill dictates economy of style. __________________________________________________ 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

3 3

forbidden files
by Carel Fellinger 07 Apr '02

07 Apr '02

Quite to my surprise I got a linker error with a module named "files": /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-linux/2.95.4/libgpc.a(files.o): In function `init_Files': files.o(.text+0xb28): multiple definition of `init_Files' general/target/files.o(.text+0xea4): first defined here /usr/bin/ld: Warning: size of symbol `init_Files' changed from 99 to 67 in /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-linux/2.95.4/libgpc.a(files.o) collect2: ld returned 1 exit status Changing the module name to e.g. "ffiles" get's me around this, bummers that I've to change the name in all imports. What other (module) names are forbidden in my code? And is there any change that a future release will do better then to polute my namespace with module names I didn't (explicitly) import? -- groetjes, carel

2 2

Test
by Peter Gerwinski 05 Apr '02

05 Apr '02

Sorry, but I must fix a problem with the GPC lists. Testing, Peter -- Don Apr 4 12:47:45 MEST 2002

2 1

1/0 0/0
by marcov＠stack.nl 04 Apr '02

04 Apr '02

Something encountered while testing FPC. What is your opinion on this, should this compile? Const inf=1/0; NaN=0/0; minusinf=-1/0;

3 6

Problem with gpc 2.1 RC 3
by Martin Liddle 04 Apr '02

04 Apr '02

I have just moved to RC 3. Looking at the list of fixed bugs it is obvious that a lot of work has been done in the last few months; thanks to all concerned. The stricter type checking required a lot of effort to get our code to compile but in fairness did highlight a number of problems in our code; so I think it was time well spent. However I am now stuck because of the following problem: Program WriteTest; Procedure ZWriteln(AString:String); Begin AString:=AString+'ML'; Writeln('String [',AString,'] Length is ',Length(AString)); End; Begin ZWriteln(' '); End. What I see is that length is reported as 1 i.e. the string concatenation is failing. Is this expected behaviour or a bug? I also note that trying to set the Capacity of a string schema is now flagged as an error. Is there an "official" way to set the capacity? We were only setting the capacity as a workaround for problems in previous versions of gpc where under various circumstances it wasn't initialised properly. My first stab is to comment out all the places where we were setting capacity but I can't test if everything is OK because of the problem noted above. -- Martin Liddle, Tynemouth Computer Services, 27 Garforth Close, Cramlington, Northumberland, England, NE23 6EW. Phone: 01670-712624. Fax: 01670-717324. Web site: <http://www.tynecomp.co.uk>.

9 22

Random
by Silvio a Beccara 04 Apr '02

04 Apr '02

Hello, how could I obtain the system random seed? In GPC there doesn't seem to be any randseed variable. Thank you, regards Silvio a Beccara

2 1

Re: Problem with gpc 2.1 RC 3
by da Silva, Joe 04 Apr '02

04 Apr '02

Interesting. However, I wonder if this truncation is valid. Looking at ISO-10206, it states in section <6.4.6 Assignment-compatibility> : "At any place where the rule of assignment-compatibility is used ... c) it shall be an error if T1 and T2 are compatible, T1 is a string-type or the char-type, and the length of the value of T2 is greater than the capacity of T1;" My interpretation of this, is that in this situation, the statement <AString:=AString+'ML'> should have resulted in an error, since the compiler only allocated a capacity of 1 to AString, yet such a concatenation can never fit within this capacity. Joe. > -----Original Message----- > From: Frank Heckenbach [SMTP:frank@g-n-u.de] > Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 8:42 AM > To: gpc(a)gnu.de > Subject: Re: Problem with gpc 2.1 RC 3 > > Prof Abimbola Olowofoyeku wrote: > > > On 17 Mar 2002 at 13:16, Martin Liddle wrote: > > > > > I have just moved to RC 3. Looking at the list of fixed bugs it is > > > obvious that a lot of work has been done in the last few months; > thanks > > > to all concerned. The stricter type checking required a lot of effort > > > to get our code to compile but in fairness did highlight a number of > > > problems in our code; so I think it was time well spent. However I am > > > now stuck because of the following problem: > > > > > > Program WriteTest; > > > > > > Procedure ZWriteln(AString:String); > > > Begin > > > AString:=AString+'ML'; > > > Writeln('String [',AString,'] Length is ',Length(AString)); > > > End; > > > > > > Begin > > > ZWriteln(' '); > > > End. > > > > > > What I see is that length is reported as 1 i.e. the string > concatenation > > > is failing. Is this expected behaviour or a bug? > > > > It is a bug alright. If you pass a string variable rather than a > > literal to 'ZWriteln', the concatentation is successful. So, something > > seems to have gone awry somewhere. > > No, it's not a bug. `AString' is a formal parameter of > undiscriminated schema type. This means it assumes the discriminants > (in case of String: Capacity) of the actual parameter. In the > example, the actual parameter is a string constant of length 1. It > also has capacity 1, since constants can't change, anyway. > > So also the parameter has capacity 1 during the execution of > `ZWriteln'. Assigning ` ML' (the result of concatenation) to a > capacity 1 string results in truncation to ` '. This behaviour is > not new, BTW. > ------ snip ------

5 12

List up again
by Peter Gerwinski 04 Apr '02

04 Apr '02

Hello, this list should be up again now. Peter, making this final test -- Don Apr 4 13:36:04 MEST 2002

1 0

Test
by Peter Gerwinski 04 Apr '02

04 Apr '02

Sorry, but I must fix a problem with the GPC lists. Testing, Peter -- Don Apr 4 12:37:46 MEST 2002

1 0

C applet
by Martin Liddle 04 Apr '02

04 Apr '02

Forwarded as this doesn't seem to have been sent to the list. Alle 20:55, martedÃ¬ 26 marzo 2002, hai scritto: > In article <200203261732.SAA15974(a)science.unitn.it>, Silvio a Beccara > <abeccara(a)science.unitn.it> writes > > >Before I forget: with the C program, I just compiled it very normally, and > > it gave me no error, just the correct results. > > Post a small test program in C showing what you did. Here it is: #include <stdio.h> #include <math.h> int main() { int i; double ris, esp; for(i=1;i<=100;i++) { esp = (double)i * 1000.0; ris = exp(-esp); printf("Exp of %g = %g\n", esp, ris); } } -- Martin Liddle, Tynemouth Computer Services, 27 Garforth Close, Cramlington, Northumberland, England, NE23 6EW. Phone: 01670-712624. Fax: 01670-717324. Web site: <http://www.tynecomp.co.uk>.

3 2

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 2002