New bootstrap FPC 2.6.4 for Windows?? Where?

[Jonas Maebe]

Where can I download the official release of FPC 2.6.4 for x86_64 (64bit) ???

We don't distribute one, because there is little to no advantage over using a cross-compiler.

Or do I need to first install FPC 2.6.4 32bit and then the cross-compiler for 64bit? Could the ppcrossx64.exe be used to compile FPC trunk 64bit?

Yes and yes, but you have to add CPU_SOURCE=x86_64 to the make flags for the second part.

[marcov]

So, there is no known maintainer who uploaded the other bootstraps and the Windows one for 2.6.2?

Sigh, fixed. 

[rvk]

So, there is no known maintainer who uploaded the other bootstraps and the Windows one for 2.6.2?

Sigh, fixed. 

Cool 

(still missing the x86_64 one but apparently nobody uses that )

[marcov]

(still missing the x86_64 one but apparently nobody uses that )

The cross one? There is no formal native x64 one.

[rvk]

(still missing the x86_64 one but apparently nobody uses that )

The cross one? There is no formal native x64 one.

There is It's in the Lazarus 1.4.2 64bit version.

It's contained in this installation:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/lazarus/files/Lazarus%20Windows%2064%20bits/Lazarus%201.4.2/
lazarus-1.4.2-fpc-2.6.4-win64.exe

It has the real ppcx64.exe for FPC 2.6.4 64bit.

That's why I found it strange that there is no official standalone FPC 2.6.4 for 64bit while it is distributed with Lazarus 1.4.2 for 64 bit.

[marcov]

(still missing the x86_64 one but apparently nobody uses that )

The cross one? There is no formal native x64 one.

There is It's in the Lazarus 1.4.2 64bit version.

As said, there is no formal one, only third party builds.

But maybe it is better to stick to the party line and use the crosscompiler for that.

[rvk]

(still missing the x86_64 one but apparently nobody uses that )

The cross one? There is no formal native x64 one.

There is It's in the Lazarus 1.4.2 64bit version.

As said, there is no formal one, only third party builds.

But maybe it is better to stick to the party line and use the crosscompiler for that.

In that case it still wouldn't be possible to build FPC 64bit from scratch with a bootstrap compiler without first installing FPC 32bit.

But ok. I don't use 64bit myself and it is not advised either:

Current released versions of FPC (2.6.x) do not include support for SEH handling. This can affect the stability of many 64 bit applications. Therefore it is recommended to use the 32bit IDE, and generate 32bit applications only. This will change when FPC 3.0 is released.
Please visit our forums and Wiki for additional information.
http://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/Windows_Programming_Tips#FPC_2.6.x.2FLazarus_warning_.28Missing_support_for_SEH.29

(fpcup64.exe might temporarily need to find some other solution)

[marcov]

In that case it still wouldn't be possible to build FPC 64bit from scratch with a bootstrap compiler without first installing FPC 32bit.

Why? The win32->win64 crosscompiler should be able to generate win64 binaries? What does it matter that it is a win32 binary for bootstrap start ?

But ok. I don't use 64bit myself and it is not advised either:

The only reason that I do anything about 2.6.4 is to rectify the 3.0 bootstrapping situation for fpcup. I wouldn't put too much effort 2.6.x otherwise.

Note that 3.0 only fixes SEH for win64.  This because any exception use in foreign code  (including shell plugins running in open->file) caused problems.

The win32 SEH is sleeping in 3.x . But you only need that if you have foreign code that raises exceptions and leaves you to handle it.

[DonAlfredo]

@marcov
Thanks !
FPCUP will soon be updated to reflect the changes.

[rvk]

In that case it still wouldn't be possible to build FPC 64bit from scratch with a bootstrap compiler without first installing FPC 32bit.

Why? The win32->win64 crosscompiler should be able to generate win64 binaries? What does it matter that it is a win32 binary for bootstrap start ?

You don't have a win32->win64 crosscompiler if you build fpc 64bit from scratch (without any 32bit parts). That's what the 64bit bootstrap would be for. So without the 64bit bootstrap you would still need to download the crosscompiler separately. True... it's "just" a 22MB download but still massively larger than the <1MB ppcx64.exe.

The only reason that I do anything about 2.6.4 is to rectify the 3.0 bootstrapping situation for fpcup. I wouldn't put too much effort 2.6.x otherwise.

That's why I mentioned it. fpcup64.exe wouldn't work without downloading the extra 22MB for the crosscompiler (or does it??).

But I leave that up to DonAlfredo to debate and fix.
(maybe it's not necessary)

[marcov]

@marcov
Thanks !
FPCUP will soon be updated to reflect the changes.

I also added the crosscompiler.

[marcov]

You don't have a win32->win64 crosscompiler if you build fpc 64bit from scratch (without any 32bit parts). That's what the 64bit bootstrap would be for. So without the 64bit bootstrap you would still need to download the crosscompiler separately. True... it's "just" a 22MB download but still massively larger than the <1MB ppcx64.exe.

I meant a crosscompiler bootstrap archive as opposed to a native win64 bootstrap archive.

[rvk]

@marcov
Thanks !
FPCUP will soon be updated to reflect the changes.

I also added the crosscompiler.

Ah  Yeah. That would fix it 

I hope we haven't been too much trouble

[DonAlfredo]

@marcov:
Give them a finger, and they'll take the whole hand ... Linux (+ARM) ?

[marcov]

@marcov:
Give them a finger, and they'll take the whole hand ... Linux (+ARM) ?

For Linux, ask somebody else.  There is no useful ARM in 2.6.4 anyway that works with e.g. Raspberry PIs, so unless you target armv5 sheeva that is pointless.