Recent

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
General / Re: Access violation when opening Tools/Options
« Last post by JuhaManninen on Today at 10:29:38 am »
Quote from: Чебурашка on April 19, 2024, 12:27:34 pm
... when I do Tools/Options I get an Access Violation, that seems related to the parsing of the jedi code formatter settings.
Nobody else seems to have the problem, thus it must be wrong/corrupt data in your local configuration.
Delete or rename your local configuration directory, by default ~/.lazarus
It will be recreated with default data when you start Lazarus again. Do you still get the error?
2
General / Re: HeapTrc not showing line numbers
« Last post by TRon on Today at 10:26:30 am »
User dbannon did a lot of grunt-work some time ago (probably others went the same route even before that, I seem unable to recall) trying to figure that out and the result of that is more or less summarized in this thread.
3
General / HeapTrc not showing line numbers
« Last post by JdeHaan on Today at 09:59:27 am »
Hi,

I'm trying to find out where in my code memory leaks are created (actually, memory not freed properly).
However, the HeapTrc doesn't show the line numbers.
I followed the instructions on this page: https://www.freepascal.org/docs-html/rtl/heaptrc/usage.html
And settings are as in the attached picture.

What am I missing?

Code: Text  [Select][+][-]
  1. Call trace for block $0000000106054400 size 32
  2.   $0000000105E05BA8
  3.   $0000000105E05E9A
  4.   $0000000105E05EEE
  5.   $0000000105E0532A
  6.   $0000000105E052AB
  7.   $0000000105E053EB
  8.   $0000000105E0626B
  9.   $0000000105E061DE
  10.   $0000000105E06956
  11.   $0000000105DFC752
  12.   $0000000105DC5845
  13.   $0000000105DD520C
  14.   $00007FF8178E1366
  15. Call trace for block $0000000106054200 size 32
  16.   $0000000105E05B8D
  17.   $0000000105E05E9A
  18.   $0000000105E05EEE
  19.   $0000000105E0532A
  20.   $0000000105E052AB
  21.   $0000000105E053EB
  22.   $0000000105E0626B
  23.  

---------------------------------
LAZ+FPC trunk, MacOS Sonoma
4
Databases / Re: Step-into the field setter
« Last post by ginoo on Today at 07:50:24 am »
thanks  @Martin_fr
5
General / Re: Access violation when opening Tools/Options
« Last post by TRon on Today at 07:06:49 am »
Debian bookworm x86_64 with mate & gtk here and no problem as described when running Lazarus 2.2.4, 2.2.6, 2.3, 3.0 or 3.2

Have you tried running Lazarus from the commandline ? Usually it emits a couple of lines when things go wrong and those lines might be able to tell more (so please copy-paste those lines to a message in this forum in case it emitted something useful).

It is possible to even obtain more (debug) information by providing commandline options to Lazarus. Type ./lazarus --help for detailed information for the argument --debug-enable and the options that it accepts.
6
Beginners / Re: Does anyone know why these code cannot be compiled by the fpc?
« Last post by TYDQ on Today at 05:24:32 am »
Quote from: Laksen on April 19, 2024, 03:04:14 pm
The proper way to initialize a record is to name each field:
Code: Pascal  [Select][+][-]
  1. const efi_loaded_image_protocol_guid:efi_guid=(data1: $5B1B31A1; data2:$9562; data3: $11D2; data4: ($8E,$3F,$00,$A0,$C9,$69,$72,$3B));

A nice shortcut if you use instead the inbuilt TGuid is that you can write:
Code: Pascal  [Select][+][-]
  1. const efi_loaded_image_protocol_guid: TGuid = '{5B1B31A1-9562-11D2-8E3F-00A0C969723B}';
Thank you,Problem solved.
7
Other / Re: Forum slow
« Last post by Curt Carpenter on Today at 03:41:07 am »
1:40 GMT -- me too.
8
General / Re: Arabic text, problem on Linux
« Last post by Zaher on Today at 03:29:16 am »
His problem with all characters, but he didn't mentioned which version and which GUI platform used.
9
Third party / Re: InstallAware Using Lazarus IDE
« Last post by TRon on Today at 02:55:41 am »
Quote from: dbannon on Today at 02:45:38 am
Even within Linux, different binary install models are more or less compulsory. End users who want a binary install expect the familiar install model for their platform. Deb users want a deb, rpm users want an rpm, packman....

One single look and feel installer would be unfamiliar to every possible user. Its like saying we can make a car that runs on water, or a boat that runs on land, possible and has been done. But in both cases, they do a terrible job at everything !
^^ Exactly that ^^ ergo +1

The idea to have a uniform installer for each and every platform might sound nice but in practice will not work for those reason(s). Ofc. everybody is more than welcome to implement their idea('s).
10
Third party / Re: InstallAware Using Lazarus IDE
« Last post by dbannon on Today at 02:45:38 am »
Quote from: msintle on April 19, 2024, 04:15:29 pm
....
Right now it's plain impossible to install official Lazarus releases on most Linux environments, unless you're using FPCUPDLX.
Sorry, thats plain silly.
I run a set of seven virtual and real machines to build and test my app before release. Yesterday, I decided I needed to use Lazarus 3.2 instead of 3.0 so, quick tweak of my bash script, installed Lazarus 3.2 on four quite different Linux systems in about 5 minutes each. They all had FPC323 snapshot and each worked as expected.

(My script grabs a local Lazarus source zip or, if necessary downloads one, puts it in an appropriate place, build lazarus, sets up a config dir, trivial !)

Quote
Again, it is exactly the same for Apple Silicon native macOS installations -
I don't have Apple Silicon hardware but have no problem building Lazarus on a intel based Mac and cross compiling.

Quote
I honestly can't see the harm in having a consistent installation process, with official support for AMD64 and aarch64 targets on both Linux and macOS. It'll only serve to make Lazarus more accessible for greater adoption. With Delphi just at #11 on this year's Tiobe index, the timing is really perfect for an upgrade of the installation (and by implication, the user experience).
...
Help me understand how this is a bad thing?

Even within Linux, different binary install models are more or less compulsory. End users who want a binary install expect the familiar install model for their platform. Deb users want a deb, rpm users want an rpm, packman....

One single look and feel installer would be unfamiliar to every possible user. Its like saying we can make a car that runs on water, or a boat that runs on land, possible and has been done. But in both cases, they do a terrible job at everything !
...
Davo
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10

TinyPortal © 2005-2018