Mailing lists / fpc-devel / 2021-03
SocketCAN implementation
4 messages · 2 people · –
- Michael Van Canneyt 2
- Zeljko Avramovic 2
Reply by email Subscribe to this list Your subscription
Read-only archive. Use j and k to move between messages.
Zeljko Avramovic wrote 15 lines
Hello everyone,
I have implemented SocketCAN wrappers for FreePascal which I would like to contribute. Before creating a patch for Mantis, could
someone please take a look at it's current form and advise me on further steps, changes and improvements that I should
eventually do? I would like it to be available right out of the box with FreePascal (as it is now the case with Python and C),
so I guess that it should end up as a FreePascal package.
Maybe it is important to mention that SocketCAN is linux only, but seeing how popular it is I do not think it will stay that for
long.
I have already prepared sockets for CAN changes earlier with this patch: https://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=38566.
There is still some work waiting for me with SAE J1939 high level protocol and writing docs and more demos, but I would
appreciate if you could take a look at it's current state and give comments. Just download can.zip file from this message:
https://forum.lazarus.freepascal.org/index.php/topic,39858.msg397239.html#msg397239.
I had a look.
Since this is currently linux-only, and there are several units, I would opt to make this a separate package.
The directory structure to use should be clear, I suppose:
can
can/src
can/examples
Is there any reason you used mode Delphi ? If possible, I would prefer it if you used mode objfpc. It's a little more strict than Delphi mode.
If you can make a fpmake.pp file, that would be appreciated, but if you don't feel up to that I can do it when you submit the sources, that's not a problem.
Michael.
I had a look.
Thanks, I really appreciate it.
Show quoted text 8 lines
Since this is currently linux-only, and there are several units, I would opt to make this a separate
package.
The directory structure to use should be clear, I suppose:
can
can/src
can/examples
Understood.
Is there any reason you used mode Delphi ? If possible, I would prefer it if you used mode objfpc. It's a little more strict than Delphi mode.
A while ago have tried to force myself to use objfpc mode, and even published one package with it (https://bitbucket.org/avra/pasettimino/src/master/), but it simply did not stick and I am back to delphi mode. While I shall leave examples in delphi mode, I might try to get rid of delphi mode in translated headers.
If you can make a fpmake.pp file, that would be appreciated, but if you don't feel up to that I can do it when you submit the sources, that's not a problem.
I'll try.
Btw, should I prohibit non-linuxes in source code by using $FATAL, or some other way is preferred?
Zeljko Avramovic wrote 25 lines
> I had a look.
Thanks, I really appreciate it.
> Since this is currently linux-only, and there are several units, I would opt to make this a separate
> package.
>
> The directory structure to use should be clear, I suppose:
>
> can
> can/src
> can/examples
Understood.
> Is there any reason you used mode Delphi ? If possible, I would prefer it if
> you used mode objfpc. It's a little more strict than Delphi mode.
A while ago have tried to force myself to use objfpc mode, and even
published one package with it
(https://bitbucket.org/avra/pasettimino/src/master/), but it simply did
not stick and I am back to delphi mode. While I shall leave examples in
delphi mode, I might try to get rid of delphi mode in translated headers.
That would be appreciated.
Show quoted text 8 lines
> If you can make a fpmake.pp file, that would be appreciated, but if you
> don't feel up to that I can do it when you submit the sources, that's not a
> problem.
I'll try.
Btw, should I prohibit non-linuxes in source code by using $FATAL, or some other way is preferred?
Not needed. fpmake will take care of this.
Michael.