Sign in Join

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

Mailing lists / fpc-pascal / 2013-07

Free pascal 1.0.6

26 messages · 8 people · –

Reply by email Subscribe to this list Your subscription

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

Matúš Kudláč

Hi,

I want to use Free Pascal 1.0.6 in windows XP Professional 32bit. I know to ask some questions about that. Are there some stability problems with that version(compiler, IDE, debugger, ...)? If there are can I make some changes to make it stable(for example to edit the properties of the shortcut).

Mattias Gaertner
to Matúš Kudláč
Show quoted text 8 lines
Hi, I want to use Free Pascal 1.0.6 in windows XP Professional 32bit. I know to ask some questions about that. Are there some stability problems with that version(compiler, IDE, debugger, ...)? If there are can I make some changes to make it stable(for example to edit the properties of the shortcut).

Why not use 2.6.2? It is free. No update fee, full version, with source.

Mattias

Graeme Geldenhuys
to Mattias Gaertner
Mattias Gaertner wrote
Why not use 2.6.2? It is free. No update fee, full version, with source.

I think maybe he is getting confused with FPC and Lazarus versions. Maybe he is referring to Lazarus 1.0.6 release?

Regards,
- Graeme -

Matúš Kudláč
to Mattias Gaertner: On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 22:14:09 +0200 Why not use 2.6.2? It is free. No update fee, full…

I have a reason why i need version 1.0.6(it is not personal reason I shouldnt write here about it) thats why I want to know if it is stable(all parts compiler, ide, debugger, ...)

On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 11:35 PM, Mattias Gaertner <

Show quoted text 21 lines
wrote: On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 22:14:09 +0200 Matúš Kudláč wrote: > Hi, > > > I want to use Free Pascal 1.0.6 in windows XP Professional 32bit. I > know to ask some questions about that. Are there some stability problems > with that version(compiler, IDE, debugger, ...)? If there are can I make > some changes to make it stable(for example to edit the properties of the > shortcut). Why not use 2.6.2? It is free. No update fee, full version, with source. Mattias _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
leledumbo
to Matúš Kudláč

Older versions are never free of bugs (that's one of the reason why the next version appears), and even worse, it looks like there's no trace of bug reports for version as old as 1.0.6 (>10 years). Just try everything yourself, and if something is wrong, feel free to fix yourself (the source is open after all).

View this message in context: http://free-pascal-general.1045716.n5.nabble.com/Free-pascal-1-0-6-tp5715748p5715751.html Sent from the Free Pascal - General mailing list .
Marco van de Voort
to leledumbo

In our previous episode, leledumbo said:

Show quoted text 5 lines
Older versions are never free of bugs (that's one of the reason why the next version appears), and even worse, it looks like there's no trace of bug reports for version as old as 1.0.6 (>10 years). Just try everything yourself, and if something is wrong, feel free to fix yourself (the source is open after all).

1.0.6 had run its course before FPC switched to Mantis I think.

Matúš Kudláč
to Marco van de Voort

No I really mean free pascal 1.0.6.

Marco van de Voort wrote 14 lines
In our previous episode, leledumbo said: > Older versions are never free of bugs (that's one of the reason why the next > version appears), and even worse, it looks like there's no trace of bug > reports for version as old as 1.0.6 (>10 years). Just try everything > yourself, and if something is wrong, feel free to fix yourself (the source > is open after all). 1.0.6 had run its course before FPC switched to Mantis I think. _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Matúš Kudláč
to Matúš Kudláč

I want to know if there are some stability problems with this version and all of its parts(IDE, compiler, debugger). I mean problems like crashing, freezing, ....

Matúš Kudláč wrote 21 lines
No I really mean free pascal 1.0.6. On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Marco van de Voort wrote: > In our previous episode, leledumbo said: > > Older versions are never free of bugs (that's one of the reason why the > next > > version appears), and even worse, it looks like there's no trace of bug > > reports for version as old as 1.0.6 (>10 years). Just try everything > > yourself, and if something is wrong, feel free to fix yourself (the > source > > is open after all). > > 1.0.6 had run its course before FPC switched to Mantis I think. > _______________________________________________ > fpc-pascal maillist - > http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal >
Reinier Olislagers
to Matúš Kudláč
Matúš Kudláč wrote
I want to know if there are some stability problems with this version and all of its parts(IDE, compiler, debugger). I mean problems like crashing, freezing, ....

I think people have been trying to tell you that there may well be stability problems etc.

The only way to know that is to use it and test it.

Tomas Hajny
to Matúš Kudláč: I want to know if there are some stability problems with this version and all of its…
Matúš Kudláč wrote
I want to know if there are some stability problems with this version and all of its parts(IDE, compiler, debugger). I mean problems like crashing, freezing, ....

Well, you haven't mentioned anything about the platform you plan to use, etc. In any case:

- There have been almost certainly more cases when the compiler broke with an internal error due to unsupported / improperly handled syntax

- It was an official release - i.e. it was certainly usable for most supported functionality and stable in general; there were certainly issues related to specific features / RTL functions, etc., but whether you might come across any of them is difficult to judge without any further information regarding your needs

- The text mode IDE was most likely less stable compared to today's situation - especially talking about cases like repeated compilation after a previous failure, etc.

I'm afraid we can't tell you much more at this general level. If you want to search for specific issues, we can provide you with the CVS changelog so that you can check specific areas of your interest after the date of that release (and you can obviously do the same with current SVN logs). Or you can simply try if it works for you, of course.

Tomas

Matúš Kudláč
to Tomas Hajny

I plan to use windows xp professional 32bit.

Tomas Hajny wrote 34 lines
On Fri, July 12, 2013 17:29, Matúš Kudláč wrote: > I want to know if there are some stability problems with this version and > all of its parts(IDE, compiler, debugger). I mean problems like crashing, > freezing, .... Well, you haven't mentioned anything about the platform you plan to use, etc. In any case: - There have been almost certainly more cases when the compiler broke with an internal error due to unsupported / improperly handled syntax - It was an official release - i.e. it was certainly usable for most supported functionality and stable in general; there were certainly issues related to specific features / RTL functions, etc., but whether you might come across any of them is difficult to judge without any further information regarding your needs - The text mode IDE was most likely less stable compared to today's situation - especially talking about cases like repeated compilation after a previous failure, etc. I'm afraid we can't tell you much more at this general level. If you want to search for specific issues, we can provide you with the CVS changelog so that you can check specific areas of your interest after the date of that release (and you can obviously do the same with current SVN logs). Or you can simply try if it works for you, of course. Tomas _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Tomas Hajny
to Matúš Kudláč
Matúš Kudláč wrote
I plan to use windows xp professional 32bit.

I.e. you plan to use the Win32 release and compile for the Win32 target, right? Just to make sure that you didn't have different plans like compiling for the GO32v2 target as an example...

Tomas

Matúš Kudláč
to Tomas Hajny

Yes, I plan to use the Win32 release and compile for the Win32 target.

Tomas Hajny wrote 14 lines
On Fri, July 12, 2013 18:59, Matúš Kudláč wrote: > I plan to use windows xp professional 32bit. I.e. you plan to use the Win32 release and compile for the Win32 target, right? Just to make sure that you didn't have different plans like compiling for the GO32v2 target as an example... Tomas _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Marco van de Voort
to Tomas Hajny: Well, you haven't mentioned anything about the platform you plan to use, etc. In any case:

In our previous episode, Tomas Hajny said:

Show quoted text 12 lines
> I want to know if there are some stability problems with this version and > all of its parts(IDE, compiler, debugger). I mean problems like crashing, > freezing, .... Well, you haven't mentioned anything about the platform you plan to use, etc. In any case: - It was an official release - i.e. it was certainly usable for most supported functionality and stable in general; there were certainly issues related to specific features / RTL functions, etc., but whether you might come across any of them is difficult to judge without any further information regarding your needs

I can vaguely remember there being some hanging of the IDE related to mouse support.

I tried to google, but only found
http://computer-programming-forum.com/31-pascal/9b93f1700d5700ce.htm

Note that 1.0.6 has been retired due to copyright issues.

Sven Barth
to Matúš Kudláč: I want to use Free Pascal 1.0.6 in windows XP Professional 32bit. I know to ask some…
Matúš Kudláč wrote 8 lines
Hi, I want to use Free Pascal 1.0.6 in windows XP Professional 32bit. I know to ask some questions about that. Are there some stability problems with that version(compiler, IDE, debugger, ...)? If there are can I make some changes to make it stable(for example to edit the properties of the shortcut).

Others asked you this already, but just to be on the safe side: Do you really mean Free Pascal 1.0.6 as released ten years ago or do you mean Lazarus 1.0.6 (which uses Free Pascal 2.6.2) as released a few weeks ago?

If it is really the first case then I don't really see anything that would not work with 2.6.2 that did work in 1.0.6... (except it's something that relies on implementation details)

Regards,
Sven

Tomas Hajny
to Sven Barth
Sven Barth wrote 17 lines
On 11.07.2013 22:14, Matúš Kudláč wrote: > Hi, > > > I want to use Free Pascal 1.0.6 in windows XP Professional 32bit. I > know to ask some questions about that. Are there some stability problems > with that version(compiler, IDE, debugger, ...)? If there are can I make > some changes to make it stable(for example to edit the properties of the > shortcut). Others asked you this already, but just to be on the safe side: Do you really mean Free Pascal 1.0.6 as released ten years ago or do you mean Lazarus 1.0.6 (which uses Free Pascal 2.6.2) as released a few weeks ago? If it is really the first case then I don't really see anything that would not work with 2.6.2 that did work in 1.0.6... (except it's something that relies on implementation details)

Well, I could imagine some potentially relevant cases:

1) Necessity to work with a closed source unit compiled with that version (or unit to which the original sources are lost, which is almost the same ;-) ).

2) Code using lots of assembly and expecting the original calling convention (this falls into your category of "implementation details", but it's an understandable one if it involves large amount of code which would need to be not only modified but possibly also debugged thoroughly because there are more differences than just the way of passing variables - in particular ebx needs to be saved). Although in that case 1.0.10 should be a better option than 1.0.6 - unless the original poster has 1.0.6 only and not 1.0.10 (in the situation when we do not offer this version for download any longer, but I could imagine that finding both would be still possible).

Obviously, these are just random shots and pure speculation - the poster clearly stated that he didn't want to disclose the reasons.

Tomas

Matúš Kudláč
to Tomas Hajny

I want to ask about that hanging of the IDE. Was that the problem of Win32 release or GO32v2 release?

Tomas Hajny wrote 46 lines
On Fri, July 12, 2013 20:33, Sven Barth wrote: > On 11.07.2013 22:14, Matúš Kudláč wrote: >> Hi, >> >> >> I want to use Free Pascal 1.0.6 in windows XP Professional 32bit. I >> know to ask some questions about that. Are there some stability problems >> with that version(compiler, IDE, debugger, ...)? If there are can I make >> some changes to make it stable(for example to edit the properties of the >> shortcut). > > Others asked you this already, but just to be on the safe side: Do you > really mean Free Pascal 1.0.6 as released ten years ago or do you mean > Lazarus 1.0.6 (which uses Free Pascal 2.6.2) as released a few weeks ago? > > If it is really the first case then I don't really see anything that > would not work with 2.6.2 that did work in 1.0.6... (except it's > something that relies on implementation details) Well, I could imagine some potentially relevant cases: 1) Necessity to work with a closed source unit compiled with that version (or unit to which the original sources are lost, which is almost the same ;-) ). 2) Code using lots of assembly and expecting the original calling convention (this falls into your category of "implementation details", but it's an understandable one if it involves large amount of code which would need to be not only modified but possibly also debugged thoroughly because there are more differences than just the way of passing variables - in particular ebx needs to be saved). Although in that case 1.0.10 should be a better option than 1.0.6 - unless the original poster has 1.0.6 only and not 1.0.10 (in the situation when we do not offer this version for download any longer, but I could imagine that finding both would be still possible). Obviously, these are just random shots and pure speculation - the poster clearly stated that he didn't want to disclose the reasons. Tomas _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Marco van de Voort
to Matúš Kudláč

In our previous episode, Mat?? Kudl?? said:

I want to ask about that hanging of the IDE. Was that the problem of Win32 release or GO32v2 release?

No idea, it was something with mouse support and shelling to a command shell. Keep in mind this is all ten years ago, and 1.0.6 was rather swiftly followed by 1.0.10.

Afaik 1.0.10 had considerable IDE fixes. Pierre worked on the IDE in that period.

Sven Barth
to Tomas Hajny: Well, I could imagine some potentially relevant cases: 1) Necessity to work with a closed…
Tomas Hajny wrote 35 lines
On Fri, July 12, 2013 20:33, Sven Barth wrote: > On 11.07.2013 22:14, Matúš Kudláč wrote: >> Hi, >> >> >> I want to use Free Pascal 1.0.6 in windows XP Professional 32bit. I >> know to ask some questions about that. Are there some stability problems >> with that version(compiler, IDE, debugger, ...)? If there are can I make >> some changes to make it stable(for example to edit the properties of the >> shortcut). > > Others asked you this already, but just to be on the safe side: Do you > really mean Free Pascal 1.0.6 as released ten years ago or do you mean > Lazarus 1.0.6 (which uses Free Pascal 2.6.2) as released a few weeks ago? > > If it is really the first case then I don't really see anything that > would not work with 2.6.2 that did work in 1.0.6... (except it's > something that relies on implementation details) Well, I could imagine some potentially relevant cases: 1) Necessity to work with a closed source unit compiled with that version (or unit to which the original sources are lost, which is almost the same ;-) ). 2) Code using lots of assembly and expecting the original calling convention (this falls into your category of "implementation details", but it's an understandable one if it involves large amount of code which would need to be not only modified but possibly also debugged thoroughly because there are more differences than just the way of passing variables - in particular ebx needs to be saved). Although in that case 1.0.10 should be a better option than 1.0.6 - unless the original poster has 1.0.6 only and not 1.0.10 (in the situation when we do not offer this version for download any longer, but I could imagine that finding both would be still possible).

Isn't the old calling convention available as "oldfpccall" anyway?

Regards,
Sven

Tomas Hajny
to Sven Barth
Sven Barth wrote
On 13.07.2013 01:29, Tomas Hajny wrote: > On Fri, July 12, 2013 20:33, Sven Barth wrote:

.
.

Show quoted text 5 lines
>> If it is really the first case then I don't really see anything that >> would not work with 2.6.2 that did work in 1.0.6... (except it's >> something that relies on implementation details) > > Well, I could imagine some potentially relevant cases:

.
.

Show quoted text 18 lines
> 2) Code using lots of assembly and expecting the original calling > convention (this falls into your category of "implementation details", > but > it's an understandable one if it involves large amount of code which > would > need to be not only modified but possibly also debugged thoroughly > because > there are more differences than just the way of passing variables - in > particular ebx needs to be saved). Although in that case 1.0.10 should > be > a better option than 1.0.6 - unless the original poster has 1.0.6 only > and > not 1.0.10 (in the situation when we do not offer this version for > download any longer, but I could imagine that finding both would be > still > possible). Isn't the old calling convention available as "oldfpccall" anyway?

It is, but this may not be sufficient. First, I don't know if ebx is saved automatically in such a case (it might be, but such a requirement didn't times). Second, it might get even trickier if there is code in assembly calling Pascal code (e.g. standard RTL functions) again.

Sorry, I know that it's possible to check what happens in such cases, but I'd need cross-compiler for i386 hosted on armel-qnx (anyone considering such target? ;-) ) right now. I guess that it doesn't matter too much since it was just speculation anyway.

Tomas

Tomas Hajny
to Sven Barth: Isn't the old calling convention available as "oldfpccall" anyway? Sven
Sven Barth wrote
On 13.07.2013 01:29, Tomas Hajny wrote: > On Fri, July 12, 2013 20:33, Sven Barth wrote:

.
.

Show quoted text 5 lines
>> If it is really the first case then I don't really see anything that >> would not work with 2.6.2 that did work in 1.0.6... (except it's >> something that relies on implementation details) > > Well, I could imagine some potentially relevant cases:

.
.

Show quoted text 18 lines
> 2) Code using lots of assembly and expecting the original calling > convention (this falls into your category of "implementation details", > but > it's an understandable one if it involves large amount of code which > would > need to be not only modified but possibly also debugged thoroughly > because > there are more differences than just the way of passing variables - in > particular ebx needs to be saved). Although in that case 1.0.10 should > be > a better option than 1.0.6 - unless the original poster has 1.0.6 only > and > not 1.0.10 (in the situation when we do not offer this version for > download any longer, but I could imagine that finding both would be > still > possible). Isn't the old calling convention available as "oldfpccall" anyway?

It is, but this may not be sufficient. First, I don't know if ebx is saved automatically in such a case (it might be, but such a requirement didn't times). Second, it might get even trickier if there is code in assembly calling Pascal code (e.g. standard RTL functions) again.

Sorry, I know that it's possible to check what happens in such cases, but I'd need cross-compiler for i386 hosted on armel-qnx (anyone considering such target? ;-) ) right now. I guess that it doesn't matter too much since it was just speculation anyway.

Tomas

Tomas Hajny
to Sven Barth: Isn't the old calling convention available as "oldfpccall" anyway? Sven
Sven Barth wrote
On 13.07.2013 01:29, Tomas Hajny wrote: > On Fri, July 12, 2013 20:33, Sven Barth wrote:

.
.

Show quoted text 5 lines
>> If it is really the first case then I don't really see anything that >> would not work with 2.6.2 that did work in 1.0.6... (except it's >> something that relies on implementation details) > > Well, I could imagine some potentially relevant cases:

.
.

Show quoted text 18 lines
> 2) Code using lots of assembly and expecting the original calling > convention (this falls into your category of "implementation details", > but > it's an understandable one if it involves large amount of code which > would > need to be not only modified but possibly also debugged thoroughly > because > there are more differences than just the way of passing variables - in > particular ebx needs to be saved). Although in that case 1.0.10 should > be > a better option than 1.0.6 - unless the original poster has 1.0.6 only > and > not 1.0.10 (in the situation when we do not offer this version for > download any longer, but I could imagine that finding both would be > still > possible). Isn't the old calling convention available as "oldfpccall" anyway?

It is, but this may not be sufficient. First, I don't know if ebx is saved automatically in such a case (it might be, but such a requirement didn't times). Second, it might get even trickier if there is code in assembly calling Pascal code (e.g. standard RTL functions) again.

Sorry, I know that it's possible to check what happens in such cases, but I'd need cross-compiler for i386 hosted on armel-qnx (anyone considering such target? ;-) ) right now. I guess that it doesn't matter too much since it was just speculation anyway.

Tomas

Tomas Hajny
Sven Barth wrote
On 13.07.2013 01:29, Tomas Hajny wrote: > On Fri, July 12, 2013 20:33, Sven Barth wrote:

.
.

Show quoted text 5 lines
>> If it is really the first case then I don't really see anything that >> would not work with 2.6.2 that did work in 1.0.6... (except it's >> something that relies on implementation details) > > Well, I could imagine some potentially relevant cases:

.
.

Show quoted text 18 lines
> 2) Code using lots of assembly and expecting the original calling > convention (this falls into your category of "implementation details", > but > it's an understandable one if it involves large amount of code which > would > need to be not only modified but possibly also debugged thoroughly > because > there are more differences than just the way of passing variables - in > particular ebx needs to be saved). Although in that case 1.0.10 should > be > a better option than 1.0.6 - unless the original poster has 1.0.6 only > and > not 1.0.10 (in the situation when we do not offer this version for > download any longer, but I could imagine that finding both would be > still > possible). Isn't the old calling convention available as "oldfpccall" anyway?

It is, but this may not be sufficient. First, I don't know if ebx is saved automatically in such a case (it might be, but such a requirement didn't times). Second, it might get even trickier if there is code in assembly calling Pascal code (e.g. standard RTL functions) again.

Sorry, I know that it's possible to check what happens in such cases, but I'd need cross-compiler for i386 hosted on armel-qnx (anyone considering such target? ;-) ) right now. I guess that it doesn't matter too much since it was just speculation anyway.

Tomas

Tomas Hajny
to Sven Barth: Isn't the old calling convention available as "oldfpccall" anyway? Sven
Sven Barth wrote
On 13.07.2013 01:29, Tomas Hajny wrote: > On Fri, July 12, 2013 20:33, Sven Barth wrote:

.
.

Show quoted text 5 lines
>> If it is really the first case then I don't really see anything that >> would not work with 2.6.2 that did work in 1.0.6... (except it's >> something that relies on implementation details) > > Well, I could imagine some potentially relevant cases:

.
.

Show quoted text 18 lines
> 2) Code using lots of assembly and expecting the original calling > convention (this falls into your category of "implementation details", > but > it's an understandable one if it involves large amount of code which > would > need to be not only modified but possibly also debugged thoroughly > because > there are more differences than just the way of passing variables - in > particular ebx needs to be saved). Although in that case 1.0.10 should > be > a better option than 1.0.6 - unless the original poster has 1.0.6 only > and > not 1.0.10 (in the situation when we do not offer this version for > download any longer, but I could imagine that finding both would be > still > possible). Isn't the old calling convention available as "oldfpccall" anyway?

It is, but this may not be sufficient. First, I don't know if ebx is saved automatically in such a case (it might be, but such a requirement didn't times). Second, it might get even trickier if there is code in assembly calling Pascal code (e.g. standard RTL functions) again.

Sorry, I know that it's possible to check what happens in such cases, but I'd need cross-compiler for i386 hosted on armel-qnx (anyone considering such target? ;-) ) right now. I guess that it doesn't matter too much since it was just speculation anyway.

Tomas