[fpc-devel] subtools fpcres and parameter -Xp

[Sven Barth]

My answer to Mattias should have gone to the list, so for completeness I 
include the full mail instead of leaving things out.

On 12.02.2014 16:44, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
>
>> Sven Barth <pascaldragon at googlemail.com> hat am 12. Februar 2014 um 16:04
>> geschrieben:
>> [...]
>>   > a) set PATH
>>   > b) or call /full/path/ppcxxx  and pass -FD
>>   > c) or call fpc and pass -FD and -Xp
>>   > d) or call fpc and pass -FD and -V
>>   >
>>   > Correct?
>> Disclaimer: I don't know currently where fpc searches for ppcX if no -Xp is
>> given, I'd need to recheck that and maybe the corresponding lib dirs need to
>> be in PATH as well.
>> a) should work
>>   b) should work as well, but won't allow you to cross compile to a different
>> architecture
>
> I meant, if I cross compile to i386 I call /full/path/ppc386.
>
>>   c) should work
>
> What is the difference to b?

Difference to b is that you can pass the target platform to fpc to have 
it select the right compiler executable. For b you'll need to do this by 
switching the ppcxxx manually.

>
>>   d) won't work as -V merely adds "-"+param as a suffix to the compiler
>> binary's name
>
> Obviously the -V requires corresponding ppcxxx-postfix files or symlinks. What
> is the problem here?

I was referring to your specific scenario. There were no sufixes for the 
compilers so -V won't help here. Otherwise it will of course work.

>
>
>> Please also note the following: you won't be able to compile for an
>> architecture that the fpc driver does not support. E.g. JVM was added in 2.7.1
>> so a 2.6.2 fpc won't know how to find ppcjvm as we don't have 1:1
>> correspondences between target name and compiler name (e.g. x86_64 vs.
>> ppcx64).
>
> Ah, thanks, that's important.
>
> Mattias
>

Regards,
Sven