David Heffernan

You shouldn't be compiling that unit. Should find the dcu shipped with the product.

What is the error? Can you give a minimal reproduction?

What use is knowing that if your IDE won't start? Isn't the IDE not starting something of a bigger problem?

Last time I checked that project was dormant. Once upon a time I used Andre's map2dbg to make dbg files that could be used by some tools, but I never had any success with that for 64 bit executables.

OMG, if somebody could make a tool to convert detailed map files into PDB files that would be incredibly useful.

Stefan is talking about licensing, not about whether tools exist to build the library. He's talking about distributing not building.

This is perfectly reasonable. Sometimes. User should be able to choose how to compare. UPDATE: Apparently I misunderstood. Please ignore.

@emailx45 I have literally no idea what you are talking about. Sorry.

I know. I'm linking it here because it was cross-posted. If you do cross-post it's always worth mentioning that, and providing links, so that somebody doesn't spend time solving your problem, when it has already been solved in a different place.

@emailx45 Perhaps there's a language barrier, but in this topic we are talking about the efficiency of the code generated by the compiler. Because for me there has been nothing added since XE7 that would bring enough benefit to justify the time cost of migrating.

No. Whilst for some applications, performance is not important, there are many many fields where we desperately want computers to do their work faster. And better compilers would make a huge difference. As Delphi users were are handicapped by our compiler being much worse than compilers for almost all other languages.

Imagine if somebody could invent such a compiler. Er, no, wait, ...

You OK hun?

delphi - ibtogo64.dll not found in the path - Stack Overflow

What do you think the article linked in the original post says?

Probably another bad idea in this topic which seems to be collecting a huge number of bad ideas. Do this for do different unrelated functions, and now you can pass the consts intended for function1 to function2, and vice versa.

This is of course the holy grail, available in many other languages.

Why aren't you debugging? That's what I would do if faced with this problem.

You've had my suggestion. Use a boolean and give your function a good name. Where you can't do that, use an enumerated type. You seem to be looking for problems where none exist. These kind of problems don't need to be fixed!

A truly shockingly bad one at that!

Should have been titled "In Which I Argue that Embarcadero Should Write Their Unit Tests".

Then you'll need to do some debugging. Only you can do that.

Use the debugger to trace through. Also look in the revision control system to see what has changed.

You really think that an enumerated by, with a meaningful name, carries more information than: FindFiles('c:\', True); I think you are in a large minority if that is your view.

That's not what I am saying. I'm saying that if an attacker gets as far as running code on your machine, then things like reading another process's memory are moot. Once the attacker is executing their code on your system, it's over.