DrDiettrich1 at aol.com
Wed Aug 4 15:30:09 CEST 2010
Henry Vermaak schrieb:
>> 2) An unqualified reference (PP=mypp) most proably fails - where exactly
>> does Make search for that compiler?
> See Makefile from line 109 onwards. It first looks for fpc(.exe) on the
> path. If it finds that, it gets the real compiler exe with -PB. If
> fpc(.exe) isn't found, it tries to find ppc386(.exe) on the path.
I'm not very familiar with the make syntax :-(
Why ppc386, on a 64 bit platform?
Should I copy or add a link, from ppc386.exe to ppcx64.exe?
>> 5) A matter of convenience: Currently the easiest way to get both FPC
>> and Lazarus up (on a Windows system) is the installation of Lazarus
>> 0.9.28, including FPC 2.2.4 and all required build tools. That's the
>> latest Lazarus/FPC distribution, available for almost all platforms,
>> that runs off the shelf. Unfortunately the 2.2.4 compiler can not
>> compile the 2.5 sources, so that another binary must be installed. In
>> the worst case multiple (make and install) steps are required, until the
>> 2.5 sources can be compiled by a 2.4 version - including all the RTL
>> stuff. Can we get some more version compatibility?
> On Windows, I usually install latest fpc release, then I check out
> lazarus and build it. That's pretty simple, no?
Installing the latest fpc release is anything but simple :-(
The (currently) last problem is the new fpc.exe, which assumes a 32 bit
target, and tries to invoke the (non existing) ppc386.exe. The old 2.2.4
fpc.exe, that came with Lazarus 0.9.28, seems to work properly. But I
don't want to test more, instead I simply copied the new ppcx64.exe to
More information about the fpc-devel