On Fri, 9 Nov 2001, Frank Heckenbach wrote:
So the Sparc compiler is 32 bit, and the problem is likely to be 64 bit specific (and I have reason to assume, also dependent on the endianness).
I guess so. I've tried to "see through" the code in p/rts/sets.pas, but it's not that obvious what could be the problem ...
That's great! I thought of making some more thorough verifications of proper working of SETs, yet I wonder how much time is acceptable for a single test to last?
You mean run time in the test suite? Well, as much as is necessary ... I've written some tests that run quite for a while. But, of course, the shorter the better (i.e., the prime number sieve is quite a bit of overhead for a test of sets, but on a range of up to 255, it's short enough to be unnoticeable; but if for some reason you'd do it with a larger range, a simpler test algorithm would be preferable). But if the time is spent testing many different situations where problems might occur, it's certainly worth it.
I understand. Do you think tests mirsad0[2345].pas I've attached in previous email to the list are acceptable?
That's far more than enough. Usually, GCC/GPC builds, including source, take around 150 MB (very roughly, don't remember exactly). On a 64 bit platform, the objects and executables might be somewhat larger, but certainly far below a GB.
The account you gave me is working for me, and I think I'll test (and hopefully fix) GPC on it next week.
I'm glad to be of help, for such a great project. However, other idea came to me the other moment when I've been looking at *i18n* efforts of KDE desktop team on Linux: have you ever considered translating manuals to languages other than German and English, such as Croatian?
[...]
Right now I've noticed that GPC doesn't compile well when -DEGCS97 is set on Solaris (with 20010924 version). I had to recompile everything from scratch with -DEGCS97,
With or without? AFAIK, EGCS97 should never be defined -- this port is still unfinished (and probably never will be finished since when Peter works on it again, he'll go directly for 3.0 I suppose).
It failed *with* -DEGCS97 defined (I naively tried to specify the highest EGCS define as the best). It reported a bunch of not declared identifiers, declared after #ifndef EGCS97 in gpc-tree.h:216 ... After moment of confusion I've switched to -DEGCS95 and recompiled from scratch (partial recompile with changed defines was too risky).
It's a great thing if it now works automagically!
mirsad
-- This message has been made up using recycled ideas and language constructs. No plant or animal has been injured in process of making this message.