The free pascal 1.0.6 cross compiler host windows target linux is now working.

I used cygwin, binutils-2.14 and free pascal.

( mingw unfortunately did not working: missing bison, flex, etc :) )

I tested a simple hello world program with knoppix ( linux running from cd-rom ).

Then I also tested it with a red hat linux server.

The only problem seems to be that the hello world is denied access.

It says: permission denied...

That is probably easily solved with chmod.

I am just wondering if the free pascal compiler can set these permission automatically for the linux executables.

( Is that the right term, linux executables ? :) )

So other weird red hat linux server behaviour... I have to use: ./hello ( just hello does work on knoppix )

That's probably a red hat linux server setting... ./ means current folder...

Just wondering what that is all about.

I ll bet I'll also write a tutorial so others can do it.

Also with a little side note why I want it... many asked why not install linux.

My short answer would be: 1. no space. 2. I read linux can destroy NTFS partitions :)

Since I have windows xp ntfs and windows 98 fat32 paritions I don't want that now do I :)

Later.

--- Harald Houppermans wrote

I am just wondering if the free pascal compiler can set these permission automatically for the linux executables.

No, there is no executable bit to set in the Windows attribute set. How are you copying it? When I read files off a floppy, they are often all copied with their executable bit set (which is annoying).

( Is that the right term, linux executables ? :) )

Yes.

Yes, Red Hat and other vendors arrange your environment in this way on purpose. This is felt to be "best practice" because it makes it harder for you to accedentally execute a trojan... If you wanted, you could modify your path in .bash_profile in your home directory to include the current directory (add it to the END of the list).

=====
A Congressman was once asked about his attitude toward whiskey. "If you mean the demon drink that poisons the mind, pollutes the body, desecrates family life, and inflames sinners, then I'm against it. "

"But if you mean the elixir of Christmas cheer, the shield against winter chill, the taxable potion that puts needed funds into public coffers to comfort little crippled children, then I'm for it."

"This is my position, and I will not compromise."

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

Dear all!

As I do not know on which lists it might be considered on-topic (I read only MinGW), I did not change the distribution.

This is probably a consequence of the file system: I assume that was done on a FAT or FAT32 file system which does not support the Unix style "x" (= "executable") bit.

Does the file system you use support these permissions? Probably no.

( Is that the right term, linux executables ? :) )

Not necessarily - the "x" bit does apply to shell scripts or other interpreted files as well, but most people would not call these "executables".

FAQ: For security reasons, the PATH variable in the Unix world typically does not contain "." (= the current _directory_). Of course, you may change it in your profile.

Only if you tell your Linux to access them read-write. You can easily prevent any damage by setting it in your "/etc/fstab" list - by having them mounted either read-only or , Joerg Bruehe