Sign in Join

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

Mailing lists / fpc-devel / 2012-09

fixes_2_6 branch wince arm broken ?

6 messages · 4 people · –

Reply by email Subscribe to this list Your subscription

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

Dimitrios Chr. Ioannidis

Hi,

does anyone have a hint ? I tried today to cross build fpc 2.6.1 ( .../branches/fixes_2_6 ) for wince / arm and i got this error :

"
...
C:/Programming/Compiler/fpc/2.6.1/bin/i386-win32/ppc386.exe -Ur -Xs -O2 -n -Fi../inc -Fi../i386 -Fi../win -FE. -FUC:/Pro
gramming/Compiler/fpc/2.6.1/source/rtl/units/i386-win32 -gl -Xs -Xg -di386 -dRELEASE ../inc/macpas.pp
make[5]: *** No rule to make target `iso7185.ppu', needed by `fpc_units'. Stop.
..."

Command used : "C:\Programming\Compiler\fpc\2.6.1\source>make all crossinstall COPYTREE=echo OS_TARGET=wince CPU_TARGET=arm UPXPROG=echo OPT="-gl -Xs -Xg" BINUTILSPREFIX=arm-wince-
INSTALL_PREFIX=%FPCDIR%\%FPCVERSION%"

FPC 2.6.1 rev. 22444
WinXP Pro 32Bit.

regards,

Dimitrios Chr. Ioannidis

Reply by email

Jonas Maebe
to Dimitrios Chr. Ioannidis
Dimitrios Chr. Ioannidis wrote 13 lines
does anyone have a hint ? I tried today to cross build fpc 2.6.1 ( .../branches/fixes_2_6 ) for wince / arm and i got this error : " ... C:/Programming/Compiler/fpc/2.6.1/bin/i386-win32/ppc386.exe -Ur -Xs -O2 -n -Fi../inc -Fi../i386 -Fi../win -FE. -FUC:/Pro gramming/Compiler/fpc/2.6.1/source/rtl/units/i386-win32 -gl -Xs -Xg -di386 -dRELEASE ../inc/macpas.pp make[5]: *** No rule to make target `iso7185.ppu', needed by `fpc_units'. Stop. ..." Command used : "C:\Programming\Compiler\fpc\2.6.1\source>make all crossinstall COPYTREE=echo OS_TARGET=wince CPU_TARGET=arm UPXPROG=echo OPT="-gl -Xs -Xg" BINUTILSPREFIX=arm-wince- INSTALL_PREFIX=%FPCDIR%\%FPCVERSION%" FPC 2.6.1 rev. 22444 WinXP Pro 32Bit.

Are you perhaps using make 3.82? The fixes branch can only be built using make 3.81 and earlier currently.

Jonas

Reply by email

Cephas Atheos
to Jonas Maebe
"Jonas Maebe" wrote
However, if the server were hacked that would probably not be enough. On the other hand, it probably wouldn't be enough either in case a forum server were hacked.

Actually, that's a good point - with so much more control and comms options, a hacker could conceivably do more damage to a forum than to a listserver! I guess that's the same as saying I could do more damage with a baseball bat than with a twig :)

Given the same constraints and variables, a forum server is just as difficult to hack as the same listserver. And unless the admin login is encrypted, remote access theoretically gives more opportunity to gather plaintext logins. Mind you, so far there's been little evidence of hacker email account access via this method, despite hundreds of millions of mobile webmail users. But then, it's just a matter of time before that happens! (I have very low opinions of hackers (speaking as an ex-member), but much higher opinions of their persistence).

These are all areas that need discussion, security-wise. -Pete

Reply by email

Sven Barth
to Cephas Atheos
Cephas Atheos wrote 24 lines
On 29/09/12 10:19 PM, "Jonas Maebe" wrote: > However, if the server were hacked that would probably not be enough. On > the other hand, it probably wouldn't be enough either in case a forum > server were hacked. Actually, that's a good point - with so much more control and comms options, a hacker could conceivably do more damage to a forum than to a listserver! I guess that's the same as saying I could do more damage with a baseball bat than with a twig :) Given the same constraints and variables, a forum server is just as difficult to hack as the same listserver. And unless the admin login is encrypted, remote access theoretically gives more opportunity to gather plaintext logins. Mind you, so far there's been little evidence of hacker email account access via this method, despite hundreds of millions of mobile webmail users. But then, it's just a matter of time before that happens! (I have very low opinions of hackers (speaking as an ex-member), but much higher opinions of their persistence). These are all areas that need discussion, security-wise.

Can it be that you somehow answered to the wrong mail? This mail was added to a message in fpc-devel, but you originally wrote your mail to fpc-other...

Regards,
Sven

Reply by email

Cephas Atheos
to Sven Barth
Show quoted text 6 lines
Can it be that you somehow answered to the wrong mail? This mail was added to a message in fpc-devel, but you originally wrote your mail to fpc-other... Regards, Sven

Mea máxima culpa, Sven.. I patched together the subject, text prefix, and response from different messages and didn't verify the correct mailing list at the top! My apologies, I hope this isn't too confusingŠ I have to stop doing fancy things at 1AM while full of painkillers, it doesn't help anybody.
Regards,
Pete

Reply by email

Dimitrios Chr. Ioannidis
to Jonas Maebe: Are you perhaps using make 3.82? The fixes branch can only be built using make 3.81 and…
Jonas Maebe wrote
On 28 Sep 2012, at 22:45, Dimitrios Chr. Ioannidis wrote: > does anyone have a hint ? I tried today to cross build fpc 2.6.1 ( .../branches/fixes_2_6 ) for wince /

<snip>

> Are you perhaps using make 3.82? The fixes branch can only be built using make 3.81 and earlier currently.

You're right.

I used the utils from ../fpcbuild/trunk/install/binw32 and the make is 8.32 version.

My strategy was always to bootstrap from the latest stable and then use the binutils from .../fpcbuild/trunk/install/binw32, .../fpcbuild/trunk/install/crossbinwce and
../fpcbuild/trunk/install/crossbinw64 .

Is it safe to use that utils with the 2.6.1 fpc for project building or i must use the binutils from the 2.6.0 ?

regards,

Dimitrios Chr. Ioannidis

Reply by email