Hi all,

I’ve recently ran into weird problem with “C style operators”. Though the story is about Lazarus, I thought I better ask it here. All of a sudden, my Lazarus trunk had refused to build (http://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=21571 ) and I've tracked the problem to the use of "+=" operator somewhere in the recent revisions. Apparently this is easily fixed by adding -Sc compiler option to the makefile, had it not been the fact that I seem to be the only one experiencing this issue :( How this can be? I use latest fpc trunk with no self-made modifications, and it thinks that -Sc is not the default. Please enlighten me on this.

// Gennadiy.

Gennadiy Poryev wrote

Hi all, I’ve recently ran into weird problem with “C style operators”. Though the story is about Lazarus, I thought I better ask it here. All of a sudden, my Lazarus trunk had refused to build (http://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=21571 ) and I've tracked the problem to the use of "+=" operator somewhere in the recent revisions. Apparently this is easily fixed by adding -Sc compiler option to the makefile, had it not been the fact that I seem to be the only one experiencing this issue :( How this can be? I use latest fpc trunk with no self-made modifications, and it thinks that -Sc is not the default. Please enlighten me on this.

As far as I can see from the source the default should be "not enabled".

Regards,
Sven

I had the same problems.

C style operators are by default off.

Michael.

As far as I can see from the source the default should be "not enabled".

It is fixed in Lazarus svn r36376 by explicitly specifying -Sci in makefile. Sorry for raising the question here, I didn't anticipate it to be solved so fast.

Why did it work for others, including me?
I didn't set -Sci anywhere.

Juha

If you build your fpc.cfg using fpcmkcfg with the default template it add -Sgic.
So C operator, C++ inline and goto are activated.

Patrick

Maybe because as Patrick wrote the fpc.cfg file enables the C-operators.

Regards,
Sven

Patrick Chevalley wrote

If you build your fpc.cfg using fpcmkcfg with the default template it add -Sgic. So C operator, C++ inline and goto are activated.

I don't consider the config file as a base for default. While most users might use that config file there could be users that don't. Also it's perfectly legal to use fpc with "-n" which tell to compiler to not load a config ,
Sven

Gennadiy Poryev wrote

Hi all, I’ve recently ran into weird problem with “C style operators”. Though the story is about Lazarus, I thought I better ask it here. All of a sudden, my Lazarus trunk had refused to build (http://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=21571 ) and I've tracked the problem to the use of "+=" operator somewhere in the recent revisions. Apparently this is easily fixed by adding -Sc compiler option to the makefile, had it not been the fact that I seem to be the only one experiencing this issue :( How this can be? I use latest fpc trunk with no self-made modifications, and it thinks that -Sc is not the default. Please enlighten me on this.

Didn't see it last week compiling Lazarus trunk on x86 (32-bit) using 2.6.0.

Some parts of Lazarus (TAChart for sure) enable this option at package level, to avoid accidental breakage.

New Lazarus packages use -Sgic by default since the beginning. So I guess the biggest part of Lazarus packages use them.

Mattias

In the specific case of FPC, I agree.

In the general case, I agree except for cases where a configuration file is signed/checksummed so as to be intimately associated with the binaries.

While most users might use that config file there could be users that don't.

Although once FPC's been installed as a binary on a given system a tailored fpc.cfg will exist, so it's very easy to forget about it when subsequently building from source.

Also it's perfectly legal to use fpc with "-n" which tell to compiler to not load a config in this case you'll fairly rapidly have problems with some of

the system libraries. In general fpcmkcfg etc. does a sterling job of working out where everything is, although I had a bit of grief with this with Solaris a year or so ago.