On 11 Oct 2001, at 18:59, CBFalconer wrote:
ISO level 0.
You may wish to use "--standard-pascal-level-0" in preference to "--standard-pascal" (the latter is level 1, i.e., with conformant arrays).
Will do, when on line later.
Note that the manual should have been built (or included) locally in some form or another as part of your GPC installation.
Tried that command, with the following (after the string declaration changes I posted before)
I believe that generally it would be most helpful to the GPC maintainers if you could separate into the smallest complete programs each of the missed syntax errors you noted (i.e., create the smallest possible test case for each reported problem). For example, the first error appears to be caused by an out-of-order declaration, so:
program t1;
procedure p; begin end;
var x: integer;
begin end.
...should do it. Your help in improving the quality of GPC will be appreciated.
I want to configure it (new at this package) so it picks up all non-standard stuff by default.
I am unfamiliar with RHIDE, so I cannot comment on that part.
The cleanest way to default GPC to one particular standard would have been to modify the "specs" file, specifically, the "*gpc1" entry. I say "would have been" because although GPC correctly reads the specs file and processes most of the entries found therein, no substitution is performed for the "*gpc1" spec, even though a substitution parameter is defined for this purpose.
I have a patch for "lang-specs.h" at home, which I've been using for this purpose. I'll send it to the list this weekend.
In the absence of proper specs processing, creating a command file that runs GPC with the desired language specification switch is a reasonable workaround.
Just the fact that this thread ever started is worrysome. I could see it in C, but Pascal is supposed to prevent such things.
I'm not certain that I understand your point here. The original poster correctly identified a bug in the compiler, and the test case provided was legal "GNU Pascal" (and legal Extended Pascal too). What specifically is worrisome about this bug report?
-- Dave