Hello, folks!
I have implemented most of the Borland extensions -- and some other stuff -- into GPC.
My extensions include:
- Units - Compiler directives - Bit manipulations: and, or, shl, shr - Increment, decrement, min, max - Absolute variables - Objects - User-definable operators
The modified sources are available on kampi.hut.fi in the directory /gpc/turbo-alpha.
I am looking forward to receive your comments. :-)
Yours,
Peter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dipl. Phys. Peter Gerwinski Fachbereich Physik Universitaet-GH Essen Phone: +49-201-183-2763 D-45117 Essen Fax: +49-201-183-2120 Germany e-mail: pege@mail.theo-phys.uni-essen.de --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Mon, 6 Nov 1995, Peter Gerwinski wrote:
I have implemented most of the Borland extensions -- and some other stuff -- into GPC. My extensions include:
- Units
- Compiler directives
- Bit manipulations: and, or, shl, shr
- Increment, decrement, min, max
- Absolute variables
- Objects
- User-definable operators
The modified sources are available on kampi.hut.fi in the directory /gpc/turbo-alpha. I am looking forward to receive your comments. :-)
Awesome. Good job Peter!
'Tho I wish somebody would finish up the Extended Pascal portions of GPC. I'm trying to steer myself away for using the Borland "standard" (or non-standard ...).
Well, at least now we got a "Borland" Pascal compiler for Linux (there is a Linux version, right? I've only recently switched from OS/2 to Linux ... but I'm pretty sure I saw a Linux version last time I was on kampi.hut.fi ...).
Arcadio
According to Arcadio Alivio Sincero:
Awesome. Good job Peter!
Thank you! :-) :-) :-)
'Tho I wish somebody would finish up the Extended Pascal portions of GPC. I'm trying to steer myself away for using the Borland "standard" (or non-standard ...).
I think that for many applications you actually *need* the Borland "non-standard". For example, for lo-level programming you need a bitwise "and" and a bit-shift operator for integers. Moreover, I feel Borland Pascal Units to be much more comfortable than Extended Pascal Modules due to the repetition of each exported identifier in an "export" clause. However, I am willing to contribute to this "finishing up" if somebody tells me what has to be done.
Well, at least now we got a "Borland" Pascal compiler for Linux (there is a Linux version, right? I've only recently switched from OS/2 to Linux ... but I'm pretty sure I saw a Linux version last time I was on kampi.hut.fi ...).
I don't know of an explicit Linux version at kampi.hut.fi, but GPC compiles straightforwardly under Linux. Nevertheless, I have archives with ready-to-run binaries for EMX (DOS and OS/2) as well as for Linux. Shall I upload them?
Yours,
Peter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dipl. Phys. Peter Gerwinski Fachbereich Physik Universitaet-GH Essen Phone: +49-201-183-2763 D-45117 Essen Fax: +49-201-183-2120 Germany e-mail: pege@mail.theo-phys.uni-essen.de --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello, Peter Gerwinski! You wrote:
According to Arcadio Alivio Sincero:
Awesome. Good job Peter!
Same sentiments here.
I think that for many applications you actually *need* the Borland "non-standard". For example, for lo-level programming you need a bitwise "and" and a bit-shift operator for integers. Moreover, I feel Borland Pascal Units to be much more comfortable than Extended Pascal Modules due to the repetition of each exported identifier in an "export" clause.
I agree entirely. I also think that this "non-standard" has become a standard in its own right - as a matter of fact, even if not as a matter of law. The fact that everybody else is now trying to implement it (StonyBrook, Speed Pascal, Virtual Pascal, Cabot UCSD Pascal) means that it has come to stay, and should therefore be supported by Pascal compilers (even if only as an option available through compiler switches).
However, I am willing to contribute to this "finishing up" if somebody tells me what has to be done.
Personally, I would suggest that your efforts would better serve the Pascal community by implementing more of the Borland extensions, to achieve as much compatibility as is necessary - and somebody else can work on Extended Pascal. Specialisation in this way is very good. Eventually, GPC may become the best Pascal environment around, in the sense of supporting all the major "standards". If this were so, we could then begin to really compete with C on portability, and give C a run for its money.
I don't know of an explicit Linux version at kampi.hut.fi, but GPC compiles straightforwardly under Linux. Nevertheless, I have archives with ready-to-run binaries for EMX (DOS and OS/2) as well as for Linux. Shall I upload them?
Probably, yes. I would surely like to get my hands on ready-to-run binaries for DOS and OS/2 if Borland compatibility were there.
Is there a Win32 version anywhere - or is there any plan for one?
Warmest regards, The Chief --------- Dr. Abimbola A. Olowofoyeku (The African Chief) Keele University, England (and, The Great Elephant) Email: laa12@keele.ac.uk or, chief@mep.com
According to Arcadio Alivio Sincero:
Awesome. Good job Peter!
Thank you! :-) :-) :-)
'Tho I wish somebody would finish up the Extended Pascal portions of GPC. I'm trying to steer myself away for using the Borland "standard" (or non-standard ...).
I think that for many applications you actually *need* the Borland "non-standard". For example, for lo-level programming you need a bitwise "and" and a bit-shift operator for integers. Moreover, I feel Borland Pascal Units to be much more comfortable than Extended Pascal Modules due to the repetition of each exported identifier in an "export" clause. However, I am willing to contribute to this "finishing up" if somebody tells me what has to be done.
Well, at least now we got a "Borland" Pascal compiler for Linux (there is a Linux version, right? I've only recently switched from OS/2 to Linux ... but I'm pretty sure I saw a Linux version last time I was on kampi.hut.fi ...).
I don't know of an explicit Linux version at kampi.hut.fi, but GPC compiles straightforwardly under Linux. Nevertheless, I have archives with ready-to-run binaries for EMX (DOS and OS/2) as well as for Linux. Shall I upload them?
Yes, please! Especially the OS/2 version I am eagerly awaiting! Stefan
On Tue, 7 Nov 1995, Peter Gerwinski wrote:
'Tho I wish somebody would finish up the Extended Pascal portions of GPC. I'm trying to steer myself away for using the Borland "standard" (or non-standard ...).
I think that for many applications you actually *need* the Borland "non-standard". For example, for lo-level programming you need a bitwise "and" and a bit-shift operator for integers. Moreover, I feel
Hmm ... Extended Pascal doesn't have this then? BTW - does anybody know if the Extended Pascal specs have been posted yet? Somebody up on comp.lang.pascal.ansi-iso said he was gonna do it .. I'm wondering if he did it yet.
I don't know of an explicit Linux version at kampi.hut.fi, but GPC compiles straightforwardly under Linux. Nevertheless, I have archives with ready-to-run binaries for EMX (DOS and OS/2) as well as for Linux. Shall I upload them?
I'm sure a bunch of OS/2 users would thank you for it if you did upload it. I know I would. Just be sure to drop a note in the OS/2 programmer newsgroups.
Arcadio
-
A.A. Olowofoyeku -
Arcadio Alivio Sincero -
Peter Gerwinski -
sad＠utkux.utcc.utk.edu