[fpc-pascal] Re: 2.6.0 for Solaris?

[Mark Morgan Lloyd]

Ludo Brands wrote:
>> Your question, as given unambiguously in the subject line, relates to 
>> 2.6.0. I'm telling you, equally unambiguously, that you don't 
>> want to do 
>> that. You might need to start off with an older binary to get 
>> yourself 
>> going, or you might be able to get hold of a binary for 2.6.0, but 
>> having done that, in the case of SPARC, you want to get onto 2.7.1 
>> rather than relying on 2.6.0's correctness.
>>
>>> I have no particular need for 2.6.0, I just normally try to get the 
>>> stable release of whatever new thing I decide to try out and I 
>>> understood from the website 2.6.0 is the one I should use.
>> You are, of course, free to ignore my advice.
>>
> 
> In any case, 2.6.0 is needed now to build 2.7.1. Just rebuild 2.7.1 from
> today on Solaris 10 Intel and it failed miserably with 2.4.4. That worked a
> few months ago and the 2.7.1 then build doesn't build todays 2.7.1 neither.
> Only 2.6.0 builds 2.7.1 correctly. 
> But I fully agree: don't do more on Solaris with 2.6.0 than building 2.7.1.

One thing I would stress for the OP's benefit: SPARC 2.6.0 was entirely 
able to build itself and Lazarus. It's only when I tried mixing database 
access and some heavy floating-point astronomical calculations that the 
problems became apparent.

-- 
Mark Morgan Lloyd
markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk

[Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues]