Sign in Join

Live chat for Free Pascal, Lazarus, Delphi and every Pascal programmer.

Mailing lists / fpc-devel / 2009-10

msgtxt.inc and msgidx.inc

9 messages · 5 people ·

Reply by email Subscribe to this list Your subscription

Read-only archive. Use j and k to move between messages.

Alexander Klenin
Florian Klaempfl wrote 10 lines
And taking into account the size of the patch (see below and ignore the auto generated files msg*.inc), it's worth to add. private etc. cause much more trouble in the compiler and has no more real use imo. > By I guess this whole thread got taken over by the "sealed" > discussion. I'm pretty sure, through all this, Paul is still waiting > on a definite answer of: is my patch ok? See http://github.com/graemeg/freepascal/commit/6d0dc36b82ba90403594f00bdd96a36b5b820f66

BTW, I have already asked in the beginning of the thread, but got no answer: why are those files under version control at all?

Alexander S. Klenin

Reply by email

Florian Klaempfl
to Alexander Klenin
Show quoted text 14 lines
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 18:35, Florian Klaempfl wrote: > And taking into account the size of the patch (see below and ignore the > auto generated files msg*.inc), it's worth to add. private etc. cause > much more trouble in the compiler and has no more real use imo. > >> By I guess this whole thread got taken over by the "sealed" >> discussion. I'm pretty sure, through all this, Paul is still waiting >> on a definite answer of: is my patch ok? > See > http://github.com/graemeg/freepascal/commit/6d0dc36b82ba90403594f00bdd96a36b5b820f66 BTW, I have already asked in the beginning of the thread, but got no answer: why are those files under version control at all?

Because it's easier to handle when doing compiler development work because you usually don't use makefiles to build stuff but some IDE/editor.

Reply by email

Alexander Klenin
to Florian Klaempfl
Florian Klaempfl wrote 5 lines
Alexander Klenin schrieb: > BTW, I have already asked in the beginning of the thread, > but got no answer: why are those files under version control at all? Because it's easier to handle when doing compiler development work

What is easier about the need to commit two extra files?

because you usually don't use makefiles to build stuff but some IDE/editor.

I presume the this IDE is usually Lazarus ;-) AFAIK it is capable of calling external tools during the build process.

Alexander S. Klenin

Reply by email

Florian Klaempfl
to Alexander Klenin
Show quoted text 7 lines
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 18:44, Florian Klaempfl wrote: > Alexander Klenin schrieb: >> BTW, I have already asked in the beginning of the thread, >> but got no answer: why are those files under version control at all? > Because it's easier to handle when doing compiler development work What is easier about the need to commit two extra files?

They are just committed when I do
svn ci
?

> because you usually don't use makefiles to build stuff but some IDE/editor. I presume the this IDE is usually Lazarus ;-)

I still think that none of the people mainly working on the compiler use lazarus :)

AFAIK it is capable of calling external tools during the build process.

I want really fast building and no external tool calling etc., that's why I still use the text mode ide. Not to forget that msg*.inc not the only auto generated files in the compiler sources: there are e.g. autogenerated register tables and instruction tables so this adds up.

Reply by email

Micha Nelissen
to Florian Klaempfl
Florian Klaempfl wrote
I want really fast building and no external tool calling etc., that's why I still use the text mode ide. Not to forget that msg*.inc not the only auto generated files in the compiler sources: there are e.g. autogenerated register tables and instruction tables so this adds up.

make can do dependency checking and not regenerate them unnecessarily, but if they are changed they need to be regenerated anyway to have proper result ;-P.

Micha

Reply by email

Jonas Maebe
to Florian Klaempfl: They are just committed when I do svn ci ? I still think that none of the people mainly…
Florian Klaempfl wrote
I still think that none of the people mainly working on the compiler use lazarus :)

Actually, I mostly use Lazarus for working on the compiler nowadays, because of its code navigation. I still build on the command line using the makefile though (because that's how I'm used to working, and then I can easily check multiple compilers with different configurations without having to edit settings in various dialog boxes all the time).

Jonas

Reply by email

Florian Klaempfl
to Micha Nelissen: make can do dependency checking and not regenerate them unnecessarily, but if they are…
Show quoted text 7 lines
Florian Klaempfl wrote: > I want really fast building and no external tool calling etc., that's > why I still use the text mode ide. Not to forget that msg*.inc not the > only auto generated files in the compiler sources: there are e.g. > autogenerated register tables and instruction tables so this adds up. make can do dependency checking and not regenerate them unnecessarily,

I don't want a make call for every Ctrl-F9 in the IDE, besides this the fpc text mode ide cannot do this.

but if they are changed they need to be regenerated anyway to have proper result ;-P.

Reply by email

Florian Klaempfl
to Jonas Maebe: Actually, I mostly use Lazarus for working on the compiler nowadays, because of its code…
Show quoted text 8 lines
On 19 Oct 2009, at 10:44, Florian Klaempfl wrote: > I still think that none of the people mainly working on the compiler use > lazarus :) Actually, I mostly use Lazarus for working on the compiler nowadays, because of its code navigation.

I see :) I still navigate with grep inside the text mode ide because it's one action for everything.

Reply by email

Vincent Snijders
to Florian Klaempfl: Because it's easier to handle when doing compiler development work because you usually…
Florian Klaempfl wrote 17 lines
Alexander Klenin schrieb: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 18:35, Florian Klaempfl wrote: >> And taking into account the size of the patch (see below and ignore the >> auto generated files msg*.inc), it's worth to add. private etc. cause >> much more trouble in the compiler and has no more real use imo. >> >>> By I guess this whole thread got taken over by the "sealed" >>> discussion. I'm pretty sure, through all this, Paul is still waiting >>> on a definite answer of: is my patch ok? >> See >> http://github.com/graemeg/freepascal/commit/6d0dc36b82ba90403594f00bdd96a36b5b820f66 > BTW, I have already asked in the beginning of the thread, > but got no answer: why are those files under version control at all? > Because it's easier to handle when doing compiler development work because you usually don't use makefiles to build stuff but some IDE/editor.

I thought it was for easier bootstrapping: no need to build msg2inc before ppc1.

Vincent

Reply by email