Preparing FPC 3.2.4, point out road blocks now

[JuhaManninen]

When it comes down to it, FPC 3.3.1 seems to be the first choice.

FPC 3.3.1 is the development version. All distributions including Linux distros and Lazarus release builds use the latest release version of FPC.
So, we desperately need a new release of FPC!
AFAIK FPC 3.2.3 branch is just fine. Certainly it is better then the 3+ years old FPC 3.2.2.
Please build a release out of it ASAP!

Yes, it would be time for a next major release, too, but let's not go there now.

[marcov]

better then the 3+ years old FPC 3.2.2.

It is not 3 years old until monday.

[JuhaManninen]

It is not 3 years old until monday.

Oops, right. Birthday coming. 

[440bx]

This might be a very dumb question but...

Since v3.2.4 is just a point release, is there some reason why v3.2.4 cannot simply be the current "fixes" version ?

At least that would formally "bless" the fixes.

[marcov]

At least that would formally "bless" the fixes.

See my earlier post. The last I heard it is being held up because some ARM issues (and we would want that fix to go in the distro version for times to come too)

[dbannon]

.... held up because some ARM issues (and we would want that fix to go in the distro version for times to come too)

Sure it would be great to support all the new hardware appearing. But right now, the release version of FPC does not support the current openssl on our main stream hardware. It did once but does not now.

Davo

[440bx]

See my earlier post. The last I heard it is being held up because some ARM issues (and we would want that fix to go in the distro version for times to come too)

The part I am having a bit of a hard time understanding is that we're only talking about a 0.0.2 release.  I'd say that implicitly states there are no major new features in the release (I'd even consider it explicit).  I consider supporting a new CPU worth at least a 0.1 version increase (actually, personally I consider it worth a full point increase, supporting an additional CPU and corresponding platform(s) is no picnic to implement.)

Psychologically, even a 0.0.2 release without any new features, only fixes would likely be welcome (and likely with some relief by some.)

[marcov]

The part I am having a bit of a hard time understanding is that we're only talking about a 0.0.2 release.  I'd say that implicitly states there are no major new features in the release (I'd even consider it explicit).  I consider supporting a new CPU worth at least a 0.1 version increase (actually, personally I consider it worth a full point increase, supporting an additional CPU and corresponding platform(s) is no picnic to implement.)

Afaik it is a feature (a marker in the binary placed by the compiler/linker) that is starting to get mandatory in newer distros or something like that. i.e. it is to avoid a regression on newer distros.

[zeljko]

I cannot find any issue about 3.2.4 except this one https://gitlab.com/freepascal.org/fpc/source/-/issues/39989 ... is there any issue opened about arm problem which blocks 3.2.4 ?

[marcov]

I looked in my mail, and Florian described it as a "armhf abi tag issue" on March the 4th. FreeBSD also has abitags and those are in the RTL.

I don't know why I got the relation to the linker, maybe from an earlier mail.

Anyway I posted a mail on core pointing to this thread.

[zeljko]

Maybe related to https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28848 ?

[marcov]

Maybe related to https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28848 ?

I don't know. But now I read that, I do remember somebody saying on a different (GCC related) forum that ARMv7 had been changed into a FPU less base target by default, and you now had to explicitly add some marker/parameters for the FPU to the target. I.e. just saying armv7 eabi doesn't mean implicitely HF anymore.

[damieiro]

My apologies if it's a silly question.
But if i understood well about releases, it seems that this is the block:
- Platform destination: Arm

But does the platform destination blocks languaje features?

reprhasing the question: should not be languaje features and platform destinations different and not mutually blocking questions? (the languaje can advance with new features without having all platforms targeting it, with the most used should be ok)

But i ask it without knowledge of what it could imply...

[marcov]

The next release is a fixes release i.e. no new features.

[wfbhappy]

fast