ANNOUNCE: GNU Pascal 2.0 (

JanJaap van der Heijden J.J.vanderHeijden at
Wed Dec 18 10:00:47 CET 1996

>Return-Path: <samiam at>
>Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 22:30:13 -0800 (PST)
>To: J.J.vanderHeijden at
>Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: GNU Pascal 2.0 (
>From: samiam at (Scott A. Moore)
>X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.99.2
>Distribution: world
>Keywords: GNU,Pascal,Free Software,FreeWare
>References: <gnusenet32b12cac.763542 at>
>In article <gnusenet32b12cac.763542 at>,
J.J.vanderHeijden at says...
>>  This is the announcement of version 2.0 of
>>      GNU Pascal 
>>  corresponding to GCC version
>>  What is GNU Pascal?
>>  ===================
>>  GNU Pascal is, as the name says, the Pascal compiler from the
>>  GNU compiler family.  This means:
>>   - 32 bit compiler, no limits, highly optimizing,
>>   - runs on all operating systems supported by GCC (including DOS,
>>     Win95/NT, OS/2, Linux, FreeBSD, many other Unix dialects),
>>   - Free Software according to the GNU General Public License,
>>   - compatible to other GNU languages and tools such as
>>     GNU C and the GNU debugger.
>>  The compiler integrates the following language standards:
>>   - ISO 7185 Standard Pascal,
>>   - ISO 10206 Extended Pascal    (90% implemented),
>>   - Borland Pascal               (80% compatible).
>I know this is going to start something of a fight, but when I last checked,
>this compiler did not in fact comply with ISO 7185 (the original Pascal
>standard). I know that you folks put a lot of free time into this compiler,
>and that is appreciated, but I also believe that it hurts everyone and
>undermines the standard to falsely claim compliance with it.
>To me, the difficulty lies in the fact that there are no real compliance
>tests for standard Pascal. The BSO had a PAID one, but the problem with that
>is that to validate a compiler maker's claim to obey that standard required
>a >$1000 investment, hardly within the means of the average user. The only
>other way such a test can work is if the originators would have taken 
>issue with false claims of compliance. The BSO didn't do that, and to this
>day at least one "standard" pascal is shipped and advertised falsely
>claiming to have passed it (Microway).
>For the obvious question, yes, I have pointed out the standards compliance
>difficulties to the originators of GCC Pascal, and offered to spend my
>time free of charge to help find compliance problems with the compiler
>(and I still do).
>What say we get this compiler the final few steps to meet the minimum
>standard, or stop claiming that it is standard. Obviously I prefer the
>former. Otherwise, when the above statement (IMHO false) is published,
>I feel it is my duty to provide equally public opposition.
>                                                    [sam]
"Nothing shocks me, I'm a scientist", Indiana Jones

More information about the Gpc mailing list