[fpc-devel] Another thread about the fact that official FPC releases are *unnecessarily* non-representative of the platforms it actually runs on

Martin Frb lazarus at mfriebe.de
Sun Sep 27 18:03:45 CEST 2020

On 27/09/2020 09:34, Sven Barth via fpc-devel wrote:
> Ben Grasset via fpc-devel <fpc-devel at lists.freepascal.org 
> <mailto:fpc-devel at lists.freepascal.org>> schrieb am So., 27. Sep. 
> 2020, 07:50:
>     That last quote is absolute BS, to be very frank. There is no
>     reason whatsoever not to use a natively-64-bit copy of FPC if
>     running a natively-64-bit copy of Windows, and there hasn't been
>     for well over half a decade at this point.
> Yes, there is a reason: you can not build a i8086 or i386 cross 
> compiler with the Win64 compiler (or any non-x86 compiler to be fair) 
> due to missing Extended support. Thus the majority of the FPC Core 
> team considers the Win64 compiler as inferior and also unnecessary 
> cause the 32-bit one works just as well on that platform.
Just my 2 cents.

Well, one the one hand, native 64 bit is only really important if it can 
do something that 32 bit can not do. (faster, bigger sources, ....).

On the other hand, not everyone needs a win64 to win32 cross compiler. 
And if they do, a native 32bit compiler can be renamed and will happily 
serve as such a cross compiler. (But that is not a must be included / 
such workarounds may not be wanted, especially since they might cause 
repeated extra work)

So the question here is/are imho about the work it takes to amend the 
release-build process (i.e. update the scripts). And then the amount of 
extra time needed for each release (build and testing).

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freepascal.org/pipermail/fpc-devel/attachments/20200927/2b360b25/attachment.htm>

More information about the fpc-devel mailing list