[fpc-devel] I've asked this before, but perhaps I wasn't specific enough that time: what do I *personally*, specifically need to do to ensure that a native Windows 64-bit build winds up on the FPC website for the next release?

[Tomas Hajny]

On 2022-01-12 13:38, Martin Frb via fpc-devel wrote:
> On 12/01/2022 11:51, Marco van de Voort via fpc-devel wrote:
>> 
>> On 12-1-2022 11:38, Ben Grasset via fpc-devel wrote:
>>> If it's actually now somehow the case that an offer to provide Win64 
>>> builds would be refused though, I guess maybe I'll look into hosting 
>>> them myself somewhere else? Although again I don't get why it would 
>>> be fine for Linux to have a zillion archives for different 
>>> configurations here: 
>>> https://sourceforge.net/projects/freepascal/files/Linux/3.2.2/
>> 
>> As said, Windows 64-bit is a special case because it doesn't 
>> support/recommend extended. This makes cross compiling to targets that 
>> do difficult till we have softfloat support.
> 
> Ok, let me throw in my 2 cents here....
  .
  .
> - The problem is *NOT* a native 64 bit    "ppcx64.exe"  ?
>    => 64 bit compiled targets don't require "extended" from the ppc,
> as they themself wont have support for it?

Wrong - applies only to the Win64 target, whereas e.g. 64-bit Linux 
(supported by the same compiler targetting 64-bit code) supports 
extended. This means that compiling source code with this compiler may 
result in a different binary as soon as there's e.g. an extended 
contstant included in the source code, or any compile-time calculations 
in this precision need to be performed.


> So up to this point, afaik there would be no problem, having those
> executables as 64-bit exe?
  .
  .

There would, see above.

Tomas