Hello,
We have placed the first release candidate of the Free Pascal Compiler
version 3.2.0 on our ftp servers.
ftp://ftp.freepascal.org/pub/fpc/beta/3.2.0-rc1/ (ftp://ftp.freepascal.org/pub/fpc/beta/3.2.0-rc1/)
Enjoy!
The Free Pascal Compiler Team
For anyone looking to test those with Lazarus on Windows.Should we expect Lazarus 2.2.0 to be released shortly after FPC 3.2.0?
I have build Lazarus installers for
- Lazarus 2.1 (trunk) + FPC 3.2rc1
- Lazarus 2.0.7 (fixes 2.0) + FPC 3.2rc1
https://sourceforge.net/projects/lazarus-snapshots/files/
Those installers
- offer the option of a 2ndary install. So your main install will not be affected.
- are otherwise untested (not installed them myself to verify that the installed files work)
- contain a "lazarus build" of FPC RC1. That is, like all releases, the included FPC is not downloaded from FPC, but build from SVN (in this case from the 3.2RC1 tag).
Downloads are available at the main FTP server,
ftp://ftp.freepascal.org/pub/fpc/beta/3.2.0-rc1/
Question: What is the relationship between this release and the fixes branch if I updated that, say, this morning Eastern Time?
There is no x86_64-macos version - this rules out any Mac user with the current 64 bit only macOS 10.15.x Catalina operating system.
Question: What is the relationship between this release and the fixes branch if I updated that, say, this morning Eastern Time?
Should we expect Lazarus 2.2.0 to be released shortly after FPC 3.2.0?
Changes that may break backwards compatibility will be documented at:
http://wiki.freepascal.org/User_Changes_3.2.0
Maybe add an x86_64-macosx folder which redirects to i386-macosx ;)There is no x86_64-macos version - this rules out any Mac user with the current 64 bit only macOS 10.15.x Catalina operating system.
The i386-macosx (http://ftp://ftp.freepascal.org/pub/fpc/beta/3.2.0-rc1/i386-macosx/) release is a "fat" release. It contains both i386 and x86_64 compilers. See the Getting Started (Intel).rtf file inside the package.
There is no content on that site. Maybe it should be https://wiki.freepascal.org/User_Changes_3.2 (https://wiki.freepascal.org/User_Changes_3.2)?
IMO no, first we must branch 2.2_fixes and I hope that it'll happen in 2-8 weeks after 3.2.0 release, after that RC candidates and then release, so with most optimistic scenarioWell, the Lazarus 2.2 fixes could be branched even before FPC 3.2.0 release if we decided so. I am afraid 3.2.0 release is still far away.
major stable version could be released 6 months after 3.2.0 is released.
Great news!
But I downloaded the file:
ftp://ftp.freepascal.org/pub/fpc/beta/3.2.0-rc1/x86_64-linux/fpc-3.2.0rc1.x86_64-linux.tar
and when I run "bin/fpc" extracted from nested archive "base.x86_64-linux.tar.gz" it says:
[0.004] Free Pascal Compiler version 3.0.4 [2018/10/29] for x86_64
Not 3.2.0.
Is it intended?
IMO no, first we must branch 2.2_fixes and I hope that it'll happen in 2-8 weeks after 3.2.0 release, after that RC candidates and then release, so with most optimistic scenarioWell, the Lazarus 2.2 fixes could be branched even before FPC 3.2.0 release if we decided so. I am afraid 3.2.0 release is still far away.
major stable version could be released 6 months after 3.2.0 is released.
On the other hand, there is no need to hurry now. Instead we should improve Lazarus trunk as much as possible before branching, thus preventing the extra effort of merging commits from trunk to fixes branch.
Also new features added now in trunk would make it to Lazarus 2.2, justifying and adding substance to a new major version number.
I believe many people now must restrict their activities and stay home more than usually. The time at home can be used for bug fixing. I personally study and fix Code Explorer now.
Patches are welcome! :)
would you maybe take a look at this (https://lists.lazarus-ide.org/pipermail/lazarus/2019-November/237254.html) mail of mine from November where I request some feedback about me implementing selection editors, please? :)OK. I remember the mail but then I didn't quite understand what the selection editors were about.
Another matter, I find little or no wiki content about how to install eg FPC 320, beta, RC1 or snapshot. While I have worked out my own recipe to do so, it would help get people involved in this testing phase is if was, publicly, less of a black art. Is there a wiki page I just did not find ? If not, I assume no one is unhappy with me making one ?
Question: What is the relationship between this release and the fixes branch if I updated that, say, this morning Eastern Time?
The fixes branch has a few handfuls of extra revisions. The rc1 branch is from 23feb.
May I make a suggestion on how FPC releases could be done in the future to allow for releasing say a patched unit in the FCL, but keep the compiler/RTL coupled?
May I make a suggestion on how FPC releases could be done in the future to allow for releasing say a patched unit in the FCL, but keep the compiler/RTL coupled?
That said we're working on moving at least some packages to a more repository based approach (especially those that are simply library packages) with the help of fpmake and fppkg.
Hi all, the compiler in FPC 3.2.0 rc1 seems to generate bad code when the following optimizations and configurations are used.
-CpCOREAVX2
-OpCOREAVX2
OPTIMIZATION USELOADMODIFYSTORE (enabled by default in -O3).
A quick test indicates that this issue does not exist in 3.0.4.
Yet to draft a simple demo that reproduces this error. :(
would you maybe take a look at this (https://lists.lazarus-ide.org/pipermail/lazarus/2019-November/237254.html) mail of mine from November where I request some feedback about me implementing selection editors, please? :)OK. I remember the mail but then I didn't quite understand what the selection editors were about.
I will study and try to understand it soon. (Not today though)
Yet to draft a simple demo that reproduces this error. :(
If you do, please report it at https://bugs.freepascal.org
OK, I found it easy enough to install RC1 on a beta of (March 30) Ubuntu20.04. The repo has RPMs but no Debs and I really did not like the look of the install script, run as root ? no thanks.
OK, I found it easy enough to install RC1 on a beta of (March 30) Ubuntu20.04. The repo has RPMs but no Debs and I really did not like the look of the install script, run as root ? no thanks.
You can just as well install into a custom directory. Just make sure that the bin directory is in PATH and that there are symlinks to the compiler binaries in the lib subdirectory so that you can call the compiler driver fpc and that in turn can call the real compiler ppc386, ppcx64, etc.
Downloads are available at the main FTP server,
ftp://ftp.freepascal.org/pub/fpc/beta/3.2.0-rc1/
5. open the installed hello.pp in IDE
6. make a minor change in the demo in IDE & save it
7. compile the demo file in IDE
8. run the demo within the IDE (debugger)
9. view documentation in IDE, traverse 2-3 pages (at least one with screenshots)
...
11. run testsuite
From the release testing procedure:Code: [Select]5. open the installed hello.pp in IDE
6. make a minor change in the demo in IDE & save it
7. compile the demo file in IDE
8. run the demo within the IDE (debugger)
9. view documentation in IDE, traverse 2-3 pages (at least one with screenshots)
...
11. run testsuite
Which IDE is being talked about?
Where's the "test suite"?
Total = 7754 (25:7729)
Total number of compilations = 4781 (13:4768)
Successfully compiled = 3606
Successfully failed = 1162
Compilation failures = 9
Compilation that did not fail while they should = 4
Total number of runs = 2973 (12:2961)
Successful runs = 2961
Failed runs = 12
Number units compiled = 152
Number program that should not be run = 477
Number of skipped tests = 504
Number of skipped graph tests = 10
Number of skipped interactive tests = 31
Number of skipped known bug tests = 7
Number of skipped tests for other versions = 4
Number of skipped tests for other cpus = 267
Number of skipped tests for other targets = 185
make[1]: Leaving directory '/home/dbannon/fpcsrc/fpc-3.2.0rc1/tests'
We have successful fails, things that should fail but did not, but particularly 12 "Failed Runs". Do we need to provide details of those failed runs ? trev, the ide ? if you have set your path to the fp bin dir, the command is 'fp'. Its sure brings back memories !
The tests are in the source tar.gz, its extracted to fpc-3.2.0rc1/tests
macOS - no such binary in /usr/local/bin, but I do have a (mislocated) man page for it.
I think I read a comment from one of the Great Ones recently to the effect that text mode IDE [did not exist; would not exist] on the Mac. But I cannot find it just now.
Having completed the tests, what do we do with the report ? In my case, its quite detailed -
I think I read a comment from one of the Great Ones recently to the effect that text mode IDE [did not exist; would not exist] on the Mac. But I cannot find it just now.
Hmmm - this wiki page (https://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/How_to_get_the_fpc_ide_running_under_Mac_OS_X) suggests it did once upon a time run on macOS using Quartz/X11. As it's not in the current macOS RC1, I guess it's no longer supported despite the man page.
Hmmm - this wiki page (https://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/How_to_get_the_fpc_ide_running_under_Mac_OS_X) suggests it did once upon a time run on macOS using Quartz/X11. As it's not in the current macOS RC1, I guess it's no longer supported despite the man page.
Correct. Jonas does not want to support the IDE on macOS (for many years already), so the best would be a bug report to remove the man page for that target as well.
In i386-win32, there's both the native compiler and the cross compiler for 64bit, which is what I'd expect.
In x86_64-win64, however, there seems to be only the native compiler. How do I get the cross-compiler for win32?
Any news on FPC 3.2?
Shortly. It is tagged for release and being build for supported platforms. weeks not months now, afaik.
Hm, it seems that the for anti-TEvent-deadlock-on-linux patch https://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=36149 is not merged into 3.2.0 yet. So, my request would be to merge this patch from trunk into 3.2.0.
Hello,
I would like to contribute to a new FPC version. Who are the people coordinating FPC development? How to join the specific team?
It would be nice to make run FPC on a System 360. TK4 MVS.
Regards markusloew
PS I do not find the method to open a new topic.
sending a message exceeds knowing someone to be adressed.
Please merge my fixes to TRegExpr upstream
https://github.com/andgineer/TRegExpr/commits/master
>Please provide cleaned up, minimal patches in the bugtracker.Sorry, no time for this. I mean to make patch VERSUS CURRENT TRUNK - lot of diffs.
Quote>Please provide cleaned up, minimal patches in the bugtracker.Sorry, no time for this. I mean to make patch VERSUS CURRENT TRUNK - lot of diffs.
Hello,
I would like to contribute to a new FPC version. Who are the people coordinating FPC development? How to join the specific team?
It would be nice to make run FPC on a System 360. TK4 MVS.
Regards markusloew
PS I do not find the method to open a new topic.
sending a message exceeds knowing someone to be adressed.
First of this is the announcement forum, you simply don't have the necessary permissions to start a new topic here. For your topic (a port for System 360) you should look at the Free Pascal -> FPC development forum or use the fpc-devel (https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel) mailing list.
Also you don't simply join the core team. You can get access to your own SVN branch and work there or you fork the unofficial mirror (https://github.com/graemeg/freepascal/) on GitHub. You then work on your port and then present your work (either on the mailing list or the Bugtracker (https://bugs.freepascal.org)) and we core devs will integrate it if it's okay or pass it back to you for improvements. Once your new port is integrated then or if you further "prove your worth" you'll be elevated to a team member.
Additionally someone else has started to work on a port for the ZSeries (https://wiki.freepascal.org/ZSeries). I don't know if they still work on it or if there were any results, but maybe you can use that as a starting point.
Only fpc installed from official FreeBSD pkg is working (fpc 3.0.4).
fpc installed from source (3.0.4, 3.2.0 or 3.3.1) produce not working executable.
http://free-pascal-general.1045716.n5.nabble.com/Segmentation-fault-with-cthreads-on-FreeBSD-td5735669.html#a5735673
It works if you make sure ld points to ld.bfd.
QuoteIt works if you make sure ld points to ld.bfd.
Ha, ok, thanks.
And how do you do this, why FreeBSD pkg do it ok and not gmake MakeFile of fpc source?
pkg install installs prepackaged binaries, probably made on a system with the tweak (or a hack to make FPC call ld.bfd directly) Ports tree is a build only solution
trev@shadow [/usr/local/bin] $ ls -l ld*
lrwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 6 26 Jan 21:57 ld -> ld.bfd
-r-xr-xr-x 3 root wheel 11570136 25 Jan 10:01 ld.bfd
-r-xr-xr-x 2 root wheel 4464056 25 Jan 10:01 ld.gold
-r-xr-xr-x 74 root wheel 377 5 Oct 2019 ld.lld60
-r-xr-xr-x 83 root wheel 377 7 Sep 2019 ld.lld80
-r-xr-xr-x 86 root wheel 377 17 Apr 14:54 ld.lld90
-r-xr-xr-x 74 root wheel 377 5 Oct 2019 ld64.lld60
-r-xr-xr-x 83 root wheel 377 7 Sep 2019 ld64.lld80
-r-xr-xr-x 86 root wheel 377 17 Apr 14:54 ld64.lld90
I have ld soft-linked to ld.bfd.
Latest binutils (2.33) does not ship with ld.bfd anymore. So symlink ld to ld.bfd workaround does not work anymore.
Not sure to understand.
Are you saying that binutils (2.33) does not give ld.bfd but ld yes.
Few days ago, I setup new fresh FreeBSD 12.1 installation. Latest binutils (2.33) does not ship with ld.bfd anymore. So symlink ld to ld.bfd workaround does not work anymore.
====> Compressing man pages (compress-man)
===> Installing for binutils-2.33.1_2,1
===> Checking if binutils is already installed
===> Registering installation for binutils-2.33.1_2,1
Installing binutils-2.33.1_2,1...
$ ls -l /usr/local/bin/ld*
-r-xr-xr-x 4 root wheel 11495128 17 Jun 11:10 /usr/local/bin/ld
-r-xr-xr-x 4 root wheel 11495128 17 Jun 11:10 /usr/local/bin/ld.bfd
-r-xr-xr-x 2 root wheel 4570328 17 Jun 11:10 /usr/local/bin/ld.gold
-r-xr-xr-x 74 root wheel 377 5 Oct 2019 /usr/local/bin/ld.lld60
-r-xr-xr-x 83 root wheel 377 7 Sep 2019 /usr/local/bin/ld.lld80
-r-xr-xr-x 86 root wheel 377 17 Apr 14:54 /usr/local/bin/ld.lld90
-r-xr-xr-x 74 root wheel 377 5 Oct 2019 /usr/local/bin/ld64.lld60
-r-xr-xr-x 83 root wheel 377 7 Sep 2019 /usr/local/bin/ld64.lld80
-r-xr-xr-x 86 root wheel 377 17 Apr 14:54 /usr/local/bin/ld64.lld90
$ /usr/local/bin/ld -v
GNU ld (GNU Binutils) 2.33.1
$ /usr/local/bin/ld.bfd -v
GNU ld (GNU Binutils) 2.33.1
So there are multiple ld binaries. /usr/local/bin/ld and /usr/local/bin/ld.bfd are same binaries.
FreeBSD 12.1 does not have ld.bfd anymore
https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2018-November/072212.html