PM Curtis White wrote

But since it sounds like we are going to allow swappable compilers, this

brings up the question of whether we even need this dialog box or

not. This dialog is very specific to FPC. Not all compilers have all the

same switches as FPC. So if we stuck some other compiler in there

later, or allow the user to switch between compilers, the dialog would be

useless for that. Maybe instead, we should just provide an edit

control and allow the user to just enter what compiler switches they want

to use into it. What do you think?

I think the "swappable compilers" meant different version of FPC, not completely different compilers. There should probably be an edit box, though, to allow for new switches that haven't been integrated into the IDE (in case any new ones are added).

Jeff.

Okay. No I retract my last statement. The idea with inheriting the highlighter is not as good. That would confuse the issue of opening a new filetype very much. TextContainer and Highlighter must be different classes.That way they are easier interchangeable.

Kindest regards, Alexander Mehlhorn (AHM)
_____________________________________________________________________ Home of the AHM Triton Tools 2000 for Delphi and C++ Builder URL: http://www.tritontools.com
E-Mail :
You are welcome to contact in regards to any
questions, ideas or problems you might have.
______________________________________________________________________ Copyright C 2000 Alexander Mehlhorn (AHM) and Tritontools.com. All rights reserved.

I have already built a dialog for the compiler options in GTK before when I was creating that mini IDE. It accounts for every compiler option available in FPC. I need to remake it in a more Lazarus fashion, but I can do that without much trouble now. I will work on that one and the IDE options.

Is anyone working on how to integrate in the FPC compiler into Lazarus? The FPC guys sent me some pretty good instructions a long time ago on how to actually include the compiler right into the code, as opposed to shelling out and calling it. I think we should do it that way, since the compiler is written in FPC itself.

Curtis

Does this mean you don't think we should use FEdit3?

Sam L. was waiting for the components to come along to a point that he could clean up the code for use by FPC and Lazarus. Since mwEdit is coming along I would assume that FEdit could be modified to work now.

Or do you think we should look more closely at Handel or are you thinking we should just write something from scratch??

----- Original Message -----

Actually, it isn't built using Lazarus controls. It is built making straight calls to GTK. I built it a long time ago when we were going to create a quick editor to use while we were building Lazarus. But we dropped the mini-IDE so I just let the code sit. So I need to actually rebuild it using Lazarus controls.

But since it sounds like we are going to allow swappable compilers, this brings up the question of whether we even need this dialog box or not. This dialog is very specific to FPC. Not all compilers have all the same switches as FPC. So if we stuck some other compiler in there later, or allow the user to switch between compilers, the dialog would be useless for that. Maybe instead, we should just provide an edit control and allow the user to just enter what compiler switches they want to use into it. What do you think?

Curtis

Along with that last message:
If you don't want to volunteer and take over the FormDesigner or ObjectInspector, then I need ideas. I would like ot start with the form designer and design that. Anyone have any good idea on how that works? Shane

>> 03/09/00 02:04PM >>>

I think we need to get some folks to take responsibility for parts of the IDE.

At this point I see Marc working on the mwedit component as I work on the function of the IDE. We need others to create the varies forms and such that we need for the IDE, like the object inspector, the formdesigner, the project Manager, a dialog for cinfiguring the IDE and compiler, etc.

Anyone have a start on any of these already?
Shane

_________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe: mail with
"unsubscribe" as the Subject
archives at http://www.miraclec.com/list_archives/lazarus

This is true, if you want to target multi processors.

But I think the main reason for calling the compiler external is: if the compiler crashes (hopefully it doesn't very often :)) the IDE won't crash, but using the fail safe solution is always better.
Further, in the case of an error the compiler doesn't clean up the memory correctly (the reasons for this can be found in the history of FPC: early compilers didn't release any memory because the TP/Delphi heap manager is terribly slow compared with FPC's one, but FPC was bootstrapped using TP ... ), i.e. you're getting memory holes if the compiler is integrated. If the compiler is called external the OS cleans up the memory if the compiler terminates

I have placed both the source files and a binary version on the ftp site.

Win32 binary
ftp://ftp.miraclec.com/lazarus/handle.zip 592,736 bytes

Win32 source
ftp://ftp.miraclec.com/lazarus/handle_source.zip 229,385 bytes

I agree that Handel would be great if we could do it. It would give a lot of developers a big comfort feeling if it looked like Delphi. Trouble is I don't know how much will be required to convert it. I haven't looked at the source for awhile but I kind of remember it being very win api-ish. However maybe that won't be to bad with the recent modifications made to the LCL.

PM Curtis White wrote

Is anyone working on how to integrate in the FPC compiler into Lazarus? The FPC guys sent me some pretty good instructions a long time ago on how to actually include the compiler right into the code, as opposed to shelling out and calling it. I think we should do it that way, since the compiler is written in FPC itself.

Wouldn't shelling out to the compiler make it easier to integrate new compilers? Would the average developer be willing to rebuild Lazarus in order to incorporate a bugfix for FPC? Also, would it be easier or harder to do cross platform development with an integrated compiler? (I know, that is for later)

Jeff.

I don't think that is a good idea:

1) the compiler is quite messy with memory, and if it faults, the whole of lazarus will fault.

2) Also, if you compile it in, then you must ALWAYS use a separate RTL that matches the lazarus version -> each time the compiler and RTL are upgraded,, you must update Lazarus. If you use the standalone compiler version (and call it separate) then the compiler and RTL can be upgraded separately, and this won't affect lazarus.

3) In true Unix fashion, you should keep it splitted out. The executable will be noticeably smaller, and faster.

Three (good) reasons not to do it...

As a hint for a solution:

I wrote a TProcess object that allows to execute any command, and pipe the input/output/stderr into streams. It has many options, such as suspending/terminating the process, and so on.

Combined with the asyncio object from sebastian guenther, this can be used to have the compiler compile in the background, and get the output 'live' into a stream, which can be interpreted and parsed. By itself it can be used to do the same thing, but then lazarus must wait for the compiler to finish.

Both TProcess and asyncio work on win32 and linux, and are included in the FCL.

(Kassandra already uses it to call the compiler.)

Michael.

Hi!

Ned Boddie wrote

If you want a complete Delphi system - written in Delphi, then I suggest you look at the 'handel' project - it even uses mwedit as the editor...

No wonder, mwedit was originaly created to support Handel.

Martin

I am not that familiar with FEdit3 or who wrote it so I don't know how easily it can be incorporated into Lazarus.

Sam, can you incorporate this into Lazarus somewhat easily? What do you need to be done before you can do this? I really think we are at a point that this should be looked at. This way anything that we need to get done for this to be implemented will be pushed.

Shane

>> 03/09/00 02:19PM >>>

Does this mean you don't think we should use FEdit3?

Sam L. was waiting for the components to come along to a point that he could clean up the code for use by FPC and Lazarus. Since mwEdit is coming along I would assume that FEdit could be modified to work now.

Or do you think we should look more closely at Handel or are you thinking we should just write something from scratch??

If you already built the dialog, that's great! Let us know when wee can incorporate it. I think it would be best to allow the user to select a compiler. That way they could switch between 2 versions of FPC or something else.

Shane

>> 03/09/00 02:22PM >>>

I have already built a dialog for the compiler options in GTK before when I was creating that mini IDE. It accounts for every compiler option available in FPC. I need to remake it in a more Lazarus fashion, but I can do that without much trouble now. I will work on that one and the IDE options.

Is anyone working on how to integrate in the FPC compiler into Lazarus? The FPC guys sent me some pretty good instructions a long time ago on how to actually include the compiler right into the code, as opposed to shelling out and calling it. I think we should do it that way, since the compiler is written in FPC itself.

Curtis

If you want a complete Delphi system - written in Delphi, then I suggest you look at the 'handel' project - it even uses mwedit as the editor...

I'd be happy to post the zip files somewhere if you'd like to give me a destination.
There are two of them and they total about 900K

Ned

Maybe you should have again a look at the handel sources!

I think we need to get some folks to take responsibility for parts of the IDE.

At this point I see Marc working on the mwedit component as I work on the function of the IDE. We need others to create the varies forms and such that we need for the IDE, like the object inspector, the formdesigner, the project Manager, a dialog for cinfiguring the IDE and compiler, etc.

Anyone have a start on any of these already?
Shane

I have looked at the sources. The problem is that I don't have access to the source for TDesigner nor can I call any existing class called that. In fedit's source, they include a file from borland (which they shouldn't) called Dsgnintf used in FEdit2. A class TFormEditor2 inherits from TFormDesigner. PRoblem is I don't have access to that and therefore I am having trouble seeing how I can incorporate these sources into the Lazarus files. I'm not familiar enough with the sources at this point to be able to do anything with them. I am hoping that someone familiar with them could step forward and possibly convert them to something we could use.

Shane

>> 03/09/00 02:40PM >>>

Maybe you should have again a look at the handel sources!

_________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe: mail with
"unsubscribe" as the Subject
archives at http://www.miraclec.com/list_archives/lazarus

Florian Klaempfl wrote

In the KCL/Kassandra exists already a compiler dialog, maybe you can use it as a base!

Sorry, this compiler dialog depends too much on KCL's layout widgets; porting it to LCL is nearly impossible. KCL and LCL don't support streaming yet, and 90% of Kassandra's compiler option dialogs deals with the (very KCL dependent) creation of the dialog. OTOH, when the streaming would work in both libraries, the code could be shared...

- Sebastian

That is what I was going to do. I has a lot of controls, but they are primarily checkboxes, text edit boxes and radio buttons and some labels. So I should be able to rebuild it using the standard LCL controls pretty easily. I don't plan to convert it directly from GTK. That would be way too much work. It will be much easier to create a TNotebook and then just put all the controls on it in the proper places. I am planning to do that this weekend. I should be able to get the entire compiler dialog created pretty fast.

I would prefer for you to continue working on the editor. personally. We really need that and I have been keeping my hands out of it because you guys are doing so well on it and I don't want to break that. But I can do the compiler dialog pretty fast and easy. I will just make it look just like the one I built for the mini-IDE.

Curtis

I have started on the Compiler Options dialog and have it partially complete. I should be able to finish it up within the next day or two. I went ahead and committed what I have completed so far to CVS so nobody else duplicates the work I have started.

Curtis

In the KCL/Kassandra exists already a compiler dialog, maybe you can use it as a base!

I can't download these. I keep getting a page not available.

Shane

>> 03/09/00 06:58PM >>>

I have placed both the source files and a binary version on the ftp site.

Win32 binary
ftp://ftp.miraclec.com/lazarus/handle.zip 592,736 bytes

Win32 source
ftp://ftp.miraclec.com/lazarus/handle_source.zip 229,385 bytes

I agree that Handel would be great if we could do it. It would give a lot of developers a big comfort feeling if it looked like Delphi. Trouble is I don't know how much will be required to convert it. I haven't looked at the source for awhile but I kind of remember it being very win api-ish. However maybe that won't be to bad with the recent modifications made to the LCL.

+ From: Shane Miller
+
+ for now, lets include the dialog. If new compiler directives
+ come out, we'll add them to the dialog. After all, everyone
+ will have the source so if they want to add something, they
+ can!

Hmm.... I don't know. This dialog is GTK specific. If it doesn't have to much controls then it won't take long to build in LCL (and I'll do a go next week)

Marc

for now, lets include the dialog. If new compiler directives come out, we'll add them to the dialog. After all, everyone will have the source so if they want to add something, they can!

Shane

>> 03/09/00 07:47PM >>>

Actually, it isn't built using Lazarus controls. It is built making straight calls to GTK. I built it a long time ago when we were going to create a quick editor to use while we were building Lazarus. But we dropped the mini-IDE so I just let the code sit. So I need to actually rebuild it using Lazarus controls.

But since it sounds like we are going to allow swappable compilers, this brings up the question of whether we even need this dialog box or not. This dialog is very specific to FPC. Not all compilers have all the same switches as FPC. So if we stuck some other compiler in there later, or allow the user to switch between compilers, the dialog would be useless for that. Maybe instead, we should just provide an edit control and allow the user to just enter what compiler switches they want to use into it. What do you think?

Curtis

_________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe: mail with
"unsubscribe" as the Subject
archives at http://www.miraclec.com/list_archives/lazarus

Shane Miller wrote

I can't download these. I keep getting a page not available.

I guess if I would spell the file names correctly it would help wouldn't it. :-)

It's handel not handle. :-\

Win32 binary
ftp://ftp.miraclec.com/lazarus/handel.zip 592,736 bytes

Win32 source
ftp://ftp.miraclec.com/lazarus/handel_source.zip 229,385 bytes