Sign in Join

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

Mailing lists / fpc-pascal / 2013-05

systemh.inc(117, 16) Error: Duplicate identifier "FarPointer"

19 messages · 8 people · –

Reply by email Subscribe to this list Your subscription

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

Eric Kom

Good day,

Compile failed.
Please see below the error/bug.

svn up
make clean
make OVERRIDEVERSIONCHECK=1 NOGDB=1 OPT='-O- -gl -Xs-' all ....................
....................
/bin/mkdir -p /home/erickom/freePascal27/fpc/rtl/units/i386-linux /usr/local/lib/fpc/2.7.1/ppc386 -Ur -Ur -Xs -O2 -n -Fi../inc -Fi../i386 -Fi../unix -Fii386 -FE.
-FU/home/erickom/freePascal27/fpc/rtl/units/i386-linux -O- -gl -Xs- -di386 -dRELEASE -Us -Sg system.pp
systemh.inc(117,16) Error: Duplicate identifier "FarPointer" systemh.inc(117,29) Error: Identifier not found "NearFsPointer" systemh.inc(117,29) Error: Error in type definition systemh.inc(939,42) Error: Type "FarPointer" is not completely defined system.pp(48,34) Fatal: There were 4 errors compiling module, stopping Fatal: Compilation aborted
make[7]: *** [system.ppu] Error 1
make[7]: Leaving directory `/home/erickom/freePascal27/fpc/rtl/linux' make[6]: *** [linux_all] Error 2
make[6]: Leaving directory `/home/erickom/freePascal27/fpc/rtl' make[5]: *** [rtl] Error 2
make[5]: Leaving directory `/home/erickom/freePascal27/fpc/compiler' make[4]: *** [next] Error 2
make[4]: Leaving directory `/home/erickom/freePascal27/fpc/compiler' make[3]: *** [ppc1] Error 2
make[3]: Leaving directory `/home/erickom/freePascal27/fpc/compiler' make[2]: *** [cycle] Error 2
make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/erickom/freePascal27/fpc/compiler' make[1]: *** [compiler_cycle] Error 2
make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/erickom/freePascal27/fpc' make: *** [build-stamp.i386-linux] Error 2

Jonas Maebe
to Eric Kom
Eric Kom wrote 6 lines
Compile failed. Please see below the error/bug. svn up make clean make OVERRIDEVERSIONCHECK=1 NOGDB=1 OPT='-O- -gl -Xs-' all

Never ask for support when using OVERRIDEVERSIONCHECK=1, it's guaranteed to break from time to time. It's the whole reason why you get an error when not using that option.

Jonas

Eric Kom

Good day,

Compile failed.
Please see below the error/bug.

svn up
make clean
make OVERRIDEVERSIONCHECK=1 NOGDB=1 OPT='-O- -gl -Xs-' all ....................
....................
/bin/mkdir -p /home/erickom/freePascal27/fpc/rtl/units/i386-linux /usr/local/lib/fpc/2.7.1/ppc386 -Ur -Ur -Xs -O2 -n -Fi../inc -Fi../i386 -Fi../unix -Fii386 -FE.
-FU/home/erickom/freePascal27/fpc/rtl/units/i386-linux -O- -gl -Xs- -di386 -dRELEASE -Us -Sg system.pp
systemh.inc(117,16) Error: Duplicate identifier "FarPointer" systemh.inc(117,29) Error: Identifier not found "NearFsPointer" systemh.inc(117,29) Error: Error in type definition systemh.inc(939,42) Error: Type "FarPointer" is not completely defined system.pp(48,34) Fatal: There were 4 errors compiling module, stopping Fatal: Compilation aborted
make[7]: *** [system.ppu] Error 1
make[7]: Leaving directory `/home/erickom/freePascal27/fpc/rtl/linux' make[6]: *** [linux_all] Error 2
make[6]: Leaving directory `/home/erickom/freePascal27/fpc/rtl' make[5]: *** [rtl] Error 2
make[5]: Leaving directory `/home/erickom/freePascal27/fpc/compiler' make[4]: *** [next] Error 2
make[4]: Leaving directory `/home/erickom/freePascal27/fpc/compiler' make[3]: *** [ppc1] Error 2
make[3]: Leaving directory `/home/erickom/freePascal27/fpc/compiler' make[2]: *** [cycle] Error 2
make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/erickom/freePascal27/fpc/compiler' make[1]: *** [compiler_cycle] Error 2
make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/erickom/freePascal27/fpc' make: *** [build-stamp.i386-linux] Error 2

Sven Barth
to Eric Kom
"Eric Kom" wrote
svn up make clean make OVERRIDEVERSIONCHECK=1 NOGDB=1 OPT='-O- -gl -Xs-' all

As written by Jonas already: don't ask for support if the option OVERRIDEVERSIONCHECK is set. It is there for a reason.

Regards,
Sven

Eric Kom
to Sven Barth
Sven Barth wrote 11 lines
Am 07.05.2013 07:41 schrieb "Eric Kom" < >: > svn up > make clean > make OVERRIDEVERSIONCHECK=1 NOGDB=1 OPT='-O- -gl -Xs-' all As written by Jonas already: don't ask for support if the option OVERRIDEVERSIONCHECK is set. It is there for a reasob

Thanks for the respond!
but without option OVERRIDEVERSIONCHECK is set, another error occurred:

make NOGDB=1 OPT='-O- -gl -Xs-' all
Makefile:2704: *** The only supported starting compiler version is 2.6.0. You are trying to build with 2.7.1. If you are absolutely sure that the current compiler is built from the exact same version/revision, you can try to use OVERRIDEVERSIONCHECK=1 to override . Stop.

Show quoted text 9 lines
Regards, Sven _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Kind Regards Eric Kom System Administrator & Programmer - Metropolitan College _________________________________________ / You are scrupulously honest, frank, and \ | straightforward. Therefore you have few | \ friends. / ----------------------------------------- \ \ .--. |o_o | |:_/ | // \ \ (| Kom | ) /'\_ _/`\ \___)=(___/ 2 Hennie Van Till, White River, 1240 Tel: 013 750 2255 | Fax: 013 750 0105 | Cell: 078 879 1334 | www.kom.za.net | www.kom.za.org | www.erickom.co.za Key fingerprint: 513E E91A C243 3020 8735 09BB 2DBC 5AD7 A9DA 1EF5
Jonas Maebe
to Eric Kom
Eric Kom wrote 5 lines
Thanks for the respond! but without option OVERRIDEVERSIONCHECK is set, another error occurred: make NOGDB=1 OPT='-O- -gl -Xs-' all Makefile:2704: *** The only supported starting compiler version is 2.6.0. You are trying to build with 2.7.1. If you are absolutely sure that the current compiler is built from the exact same version/revision, you can try to use OVERRIDEVERSIONCHECK=1 to override . Stop.

Yes, so follow those instructions (FPC 2.6.2 will also work as a starting compiler). If you could give us some tips about how those instructions could say in a clearer way what you are doing wrongly, please say so.

Jonas

Mark Morgan Lloyd
to Eric Kom: Compile failed. Please see below the error/bug. svn up make clean make…
Eric Kom wrote 8 lines
Good day, Compile failed. Please see below the error/bug. svn up make clean make OVERRIDEVERSIONCHECK=1 NOGDB=1 OPT='-O- -gl -Xs-' all

You've already posted that, this isn't a chatroom and you don't have to repeat yourself.

Now *WHY* are you trying to compile with that override, despite being told by one of the core developers not to?

Mark Morgan Lloyd markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk [Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues]
Eric Kom
to Mark Morgan Lloyd
Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote 13 lines
Eric Kom wrote: > Good day, > > Compile failed. > Please see below the error/bug. > > svn up > make clean > make OVERRIDEVERSIONCHECK=1 NOGDB=1 OPT='-O- -gl -Xs-' all You've already posted that, this isn't a chatroom and you don't have to repeat yourself.

I know that it is not a chatroom, I didn't the respond maybe my mailbox has a problem.

Now *WHY* are you trying to compile with that override, despite being told by one of the core developers not to?
Kind Regards Eric Kom System Administrator & Programmer - Metropolitan College _________________________________________ / You are scrupulously honest, frank, and \ | straightforward. Therefore you have few | \ friends. / ----------------------------------------- \ \ .--. |o_o | |:_/ | // \ \ (| Kom | ) /'\_ _/`\ \___)=(___/ 2 Hennie Van Till, White River, 1240 Tel: 013 750 2255 | Fax: 013 750 0105 | Cell: 078 879 1334 | www.kom.za.net | www.kom.za.org | www.erickom.co.za Key fingerprint: 513E E91A C243 3020 8735 09BB 2DBC 5AD7 A9DA 1EF5
Mark Morgan Lloyd
to Eric Kom
Eric Kom wrote 16 lines
On 07/05/2013 10:12, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote: > Eric Kom wrote: >> Good day, >> >> Compile failed. >> Please see below the error/bug. >> >> svn up >> make clean >> make OVERRIDEVERSIONCHECK=1 NOGDB=1 OPT='-O- -gl -Xs-' all > > You've already posted that, this isn't a chatroom and you don't have > to repeat yourself. > I know that it is not a chatroom, I didn't the respond maybe my mailbox has a problem.

There is a full archive of all messages at
http://lists.freepascal.org/lists/fpc-pascal/ Your question shows up there, so there I think you need to start asking yourself whether there might be other reasons that it wasn't answered.

Now *WHY* are you trying to compile with that override, despite being told by one of the core developers not to?

Mark Morgan Lloyd markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk [Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues]
waldo kitty
to Jonas Maebe: Yes, so follow those instructions (FPC 2.6.2 will also work as a starting compiler). If…
Jonas Maebe wrote 15 lines
On 07 May 2013, at 08:21, Eric Kom wrote: > Thanks for the respond! but without option OVERRIDEVERSIONCHECK is set, > another error occurred: > > make NOGDB=1 OPT='-O- -gl -Xs-' all > Makefile:2704: *** The only supported starting compiler version is 2.6.0. > You are trying to build with 2.7.1. If you are absolutely sure that the > current compiler is built from the exact same version/revision, you can try > to use OVERRIDEVERSIONCHECK=1 to override . Stop. Yes, so follow those instructions (FPC 2.6.2 will also work as a starting compiler). If you could give us some tips about how those instructions could say in a clearer way what you are doing wrongly, please say so.

i don't suppose it would draw their eyes to the phrase "only supported starting compiler" by making it bright, bold and blinking on the terminal screen, would it ;)

but maybe making that part all CAPS would draw their eyes to it?

perhaps the message is too long and too informative? maybe something like a bikini (short and to the point) would be better?

eg : Makefile:2704: *** WRONG COMPILER VERSION (2.7.1)! You MUST use 2.6.0 to compile with. Other compiler versions are not supported! (You might try "OVERRIDEVERSIONCHECK=1" but NO SUPPORT is given for this if it fails!)

NOTE: No off-list assistance is given without prior approval. Please keep mailing list traffic on the list unless private contact is specifically requested and granted.
Mark Morgan Lloyd
to waldo kitty
waldo kitty wrote 12 lines
>> You are trying to build with 2.7.1. If you are absolutely sure that the >> current compiler is built from the exact same version/revision, you >> can try >> to use OVERRIDEVERSIONCHECK=1 to override . Stop. perhaps the message is too long and too informative? maybe something like a bikini (short and to the point) would be better? eg : Makefile:2704: *** WRONG COMPILER VERSION (2.7.1)! You MUST use 2.6.0 to compile with. Other compiler versions are not supported! (You might try "OVERRIDEVERSIONCHECK=1" but NO SUPPORT is given for this if it fails!)

I'd suggest that anything like that would be counterproductive, since it implies that prompt support will be given for things that are even dumber- like trying to compile FPC using Delphi :-)

Mark Morgan Lloyd markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk [Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues]
waldo kitty
to Mark Morgan Lloyd
Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote 16 lines
waldo kitty wrote: >>> You are trying to build with 2.7.1. If you are absolutely sure that the >>> current compiler is built from the exact same version/revision, you can try >>> to use OVERRIDEVERSIONCHECK=1 to override . Stop. > perhaps the message is too long and too informative? maybe something like a > bikini (short and to the point) would be better? > > eg : Makefile:2704: *** WRONG COMPILER VERSION (2.7.1)! You MUST use 2.6.0 to > compile with. Other compiler versions are not supported! (You might try > "OVERRIDEVERSIONCHECK=1" but NO SUPPORT is given for this if it fails!) I'd suggest that anything like that would be counterproductive, since it implies that prompt support will be given for things that are even dumber- like trying to compile FPC using Delphi :-)

ok... so then, "but NO SUPPORT is given OVERRIDEVERSIONCHECK usage!)"

i'm guessing that last section is what you were looking at as giving an implication? frankly, it took me several minutes to come up with that and i thought it pretty clear and to the point about the wrong compiler version... i also wanted to retain the part about OVERRIDEVERSIONCHECK but make it clear that no support would be given for its use...

i did even have "2.6.0 or 2.6.2" but decided that was not good even though it may be supported...

NOTE: No off-list assistance is given without prior approval. Please keep mailing list traffic on the list unless private contact is specifically requested and granted.
Sven Barth
to waldo kitty
waldo kitty wrote 35 lines
On 5/8/2013 12:22, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote: > waldo kitty wrote: > >>>> You are trying to build with 2.7.1. If you are absolutely sure that >>>> the >>>> current compiler is built from the exact same version/revision, you >>>> can try >>>> to use OVERRIDEVERSIONCHECK=1 to override . Stop. > >> perhaps the message is too long and too informative? maybe something >> like a >> bikini (short and to the point) would be better? >> >> eg : Makefile:2704: *** WRONG COMPILER VERSION (2.7.1)! You MUST use >> 2.6.0 to >> compile with. Other compiler versions are not supported! (You might try >> "OVERRIDEVERSIONCHECK=1" but NO SUPPORT is given for this if it fails!) > > I'd suggest that anything like that would be counterproductive, since > it implies > that prompt support will be given for things that are even dumber- > like trying > to compile FPC using Delphi :-) ok... so then, "but NO SUPPORT is given OVERRIDEVERSIONCHECK usage!)" i'm guessing that last section is what you were looking at as giving an implication? frankly, it took me several minutes to come up with that and i thought it pretty clear and to the point about the wrong compiler version... i also wanted to retain the part about OVERRIDEVERSIONCHECK but make it clear that no support would be given for its use... i did even have "2.6.0 or 2.6.2" but decided that was not good even though it may be supported...

2.6.0 is currently only supported for now. It might be removed sooner or later.

Regards,
Sven

waldo kitty
to Sven Barth
Sven Barth wrote 38 lines
On 08.05.2013 22:27, waldo kitty wrote: > On 5/8/2013 12:22, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote: >> waldo kitty wrote: >> >>>>> You are trying to build with 2.7.1. If you are absolutely sure that >>>>> the >>>>> current compiler is built from the exact same version/revision, you >>>>> can try >>>>> to use OVERRIDEVERSIONCHECK=1 to override . Stop. >> >>> perhaps the message is too long and too informative? maybe something >>> like a >>> bikini (short and to the point) would be better? >>> >>> eg : Makefile:2704: *** WRONG COMPILER VERSION (2.7.1)! You MUST use >>> 2.6.0 to >>> compile with. Other compiler versions are not supported! (You might try >>> "OVERRIDEVERSIONCHECK=1" but NO SUPPORT is given for this if it fails!) >> >> I'd suggest that anything like that would be counterproductive, since >> it implies >> that prompt support will be given for things that are even dumber- >> like trying >> to compile FPC using Delphi :-) > > ok... so then, "but NO SUPPORT is given OVERRIDEVERSIONCHECK usage!)" > > i'm guessing that last section is what you were looking at as giving an > implication? frankly, it took me several minutes to come up with that > and i thought it pretty clear and to the point about the wrong compiler > version... i also wanted to retain the part about OVERRIDEVERSIONCHECK > but make it clear that no support would be given for its use... > > i did even have "2.6.0 or 2.6.2" but decided that was not good even > though it may be supported... > 2.6.0 is currently only supported for now. It might be removed sooner or later.

earlier in the thread someone posted that 2.6.2 could be used... that's why i thought to maybe include that and then rejected due to the phrasing used ("will work")...

NOTE: No off-list assistance is given without prior approval. Please keep mailing list traffic on the list unless private contact is specifically requested and granted.
Marco van de Voort
to waldo kitty

In our previous episode, waldo kitty said:

Show quoted text 9 lines
>> i did even have "2.6.0 or 2.6.2" but decided that was not good even >> though it may be supported... >> > > 2.6.0 is currently only supported for now. It might be removed sooner or later. earlier in the thread someone posted that 2.6.2 could be used... that's why i thought to maybe include that and then rejected due to the phrasing used ("will work")...

Since 2.6.2 is out, 2.6.2 is the only guaranteed way. But since there was no immediate reason known to disallow 2.6.0 (and Lazarus still offered 2.6.0 release time), 2.6.0 was still allowed.

Since earlier this week I've changed the naming, so now the warning specifies "2.6.2".

Mark Morgan Lloyd
to Marco van de Voort
Marco van de Voort wrote 15 lines
In our previous episode, waldo kitty said: >>> i did even have "2.6.0 or 2.6.2" but decided that was not good even >>> though it may be supported... >>> >> 2.6.0 is currently only supported for now. It might be removed sooner or later. > earlier in the thread someone posted that 2.6.2 could be used... that's why i > thought to maybe include that and then rejected due to the phrasing used ("will > work")... Since 2.6.2 is out, 2.6.2 is the only guaranteed way. But since there was no immediate reason known to disallow 2.6.0 (and Lazarus still offered 2.6.0 release time), 2.6.0 was still allowed. Since earlier this week I've changed the naming, so now the warning specifies "2.6.2".

Would it be possible to query the makefile to get the required compiler version etc.? Something like

$ make version
This is Free Pascal version 2.7.1, release 123456. The only compiler version supported by the build procedure is 2.6.2.

This wouldn't solve historical questions for somebody trying to get every major version on his system (e.g. "which version of FPC should I use to build 2.4.2") but might help in the future.

Mark Morgan Lloyd markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk [Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues]
Marco van de Voort
to Mark Morgan Lloyd

In our previous episode, Mark Morgan Lloyd said:

Show quoted text 6 lines
Would it be possible to query the makefile to get the required compiler version etc.? Something like $ make version This is Free Pascal version 2.7.1, release 123456. The only compiler version supported by the build procedure is 2.6.2.

IMHO redundant. Since the answer is always "the last official release", with a few exceptions during a transition, that answer is easier to remember than a makefile target.

This wouldn't solve historical questions for somebody trying to get every major version on his system (e.g. "which version of FPC should I use to build 2.4.2") but might help in the future.

The release before 2.4.2, iow 2.4.0.

The system is simple. The warning is simply to remind people.

P.s. I added the note for overrideversioncheck too, as discussed, since it was easy to do, and solve a few cases. But in general, I think it will drown out in the noise. (maybe put a sleep there too? :-)

Dennis Poon
to Marco van de Voort
I use the console example lserver.pp in LNet and it works fine that way.
However, when I modified it to have 2 listening socket (TLTCP) listen
one after another , and in the run loop,
    repeat
       socket1.CallAction;
      socket2.CallAction;
   until Quit1 or Quit2;

Only the first socket that listens runs normally,the socket than listen after the first, cannot accept client.

I am wondering this non-thread loop of LNet only supports 1 running server socket.

Any one has any idea?

Dennis

Reinier Olislagers
to Dennis Poon

On 10-5-2013 14:15, Dennis Poon wrote:
<snip>

Any one has any idea?

When opening a new thread, please do not respond to an existing thread. Write a new message to the list to start a new thread.