[Lazarus] Binary Package System Discussion?

Den cyraid at gmail.com
Sun Sep 7 01:50:20 CEST 2014

On 14-09-06 03:00 PM, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
> Den wrote:
>> Hello all,
>>     I know this has been brought up from time to time, but the more I 
>> use NetBeans and other big editors.. The more I miss the fact that it 
>> isolates you from being in their pool of source code to build 
>> whenever you add a component, etc.  Having a binary-only Lazarus 
>> would mean an entire overhaul of a binary package system.  What would 
>> be amazing to see actually, is FPC being able to compile into a 
>> universal object (which supports the basic byte code, and sections 
>> which will only be used when converting to a certain architecture if 
>> necessary.. Like SSE optimized code), then being able to convert into 
>> native code at destination machine.  Something like Chrome's Native 
>> Client does now, which compiles the code into a universal op-code 
>> base, and converts it to native at their servers..
> Doesn't NaCl use LLVM?
     I think so yep? So I guess I should say "Like LLVM", but the way 
Chrome uses it to it's High Level Portal Executable or "pexe" format.  
If we had a code generator that outputted the IR language (instead of 
Assembly, as an option), we could use that to compile on any 
architecture* with LLVM.  But then you'd need LLVM external tools.
>>     Having this universal binary package system, means we can 
>> distribute one package, and have it convert on the destination 
>> machine.  Means we don't really have to do tricks when distributing 
>> your unit when you don't want to distribute the source code (ie. 
>> Commercial Packages).

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lazarus-ide.org/pipermail/lazarus/attachments/20140906/f6d7da60/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the Lazarus mailing list