Re: [fpc-devel] Successful implementation of inline support forpureassembler routines on x86

2019-03-16 Thread J. Gareth Moreton
Hi Ryan, I haven't forgotten about "pure" functions - that's still definitely an area of research for me.  I got myself a little bit lost because I'm still trying to work out a solid design plan (for major changes to FPC, I now write a full specification, which are the PDF files I've attached to

Re: [fpc-devel] Successful implementation of inline support forpure assembler routines on x86

2019-03-16 Thread Ryan Joseph
> On Mar 16, 2019, at 9:54 PM, Ben Grasset wrote: > > Inlining of pure assembler functions would actually be immediately, > specifically useful to me! I've been having a go at improving FPC scores on > "BenchmarksGames", and was so far successful with Binary Trees simple by > throwing a

Re: [fpc-devel] Successful implementation of inline support forpureassembler routines on x86

2019-03-16 Thread J. Gareth Moreton
Thank you so much Ben!  I'm glad I'm not the only person who gets a kick out of assembly language programming!  There's still a place for it even in today's world. I myself have a passion for games development, and it was partly my driving force behind implementing "vectorcall" for FPC,

Re: [fpc-devel] Successful implementation of inline support forpure assembler routines on x86

2019-03-16 Thread Ben Grasset
Inlining of pure assembler functions would actually be immediately, specifically useful to me! I've been having a go at improving FPC scores on "BenchmarksGames", and was so far successful with Binary Trees simple by throwing a really good threading library at it, however, there are some

Re: [fpc-devel] Successful implementation of inline support forpure assembler routines on x86

2019-03-16 Thread J. Gareth Moreton
Of course, my worry now is that we've submitted so many patches and issues that we'll just be building an ever-growing back-log that may never be cleared.  It also depends on what Florian's own vision for the future of Free Pascal is, I think. Gareth aka. Kit On Sat 16/03/19 17:05 , "J. Gareth

Re: [fpc-devel] Successful implementation of inline support for pure assembler routines on x86

2019-03-16 Thread Ryan Joseph
> On Mar 15, 2019, at 9:37 AM, Sven Barth via fpc-devel > wrote: > > That could maybe be managed once the support for constants as parameter for > generics is added (note: I don't know right now how SHUFPS works, so take the > following as pseudo code): > I fixed the patch for constants

Re: [fpc-devel] TRegistry and Unicode

2019-03-16 Thread Michael Van Canneyt
On Sat, 16 Mar 2019, Bart wrote: On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 6:51 PM Michael Van Canneyt wrote: What you could do is TUniCodestringArray = Array of UniCodeString; Function GetKeyNames : TUniCodestringArray; Function GetValueNames : TUniCodestringArray; The TStringList versions can call

Re: [fpc-devel] TRegistry and Unicode

2019-03-16 Thread Bart
On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 6:51 PM Michael Van Canneyt wrote: > What you could do is > > TUniCodestringArray = Array of UniCodeString; > > Function GetKeyNames : TUniCodestringArray; > Function GetValueNames : TUniCodestringArray; > > The TStringList versions can call these and do the conversion.

Re: [fpc-devel] Question about packages

2019-03-16 Thread Marco van de Voort
Op 2019-03-16 om 09:38 schreef Sven Barth via fpc-devel: This might be a painfully basic question, but I'm just trying to get to grips with the difference between Lazarus packages and FPC packages.  How do FPC packages work normally and what's their relation to Lazarus packages? I ask

Re: [fpc-devel] Question about packages

2019-03-16 Thread Sven Barth via fpc-devel
Am 16.03.2019 um 01:14 schrieb J. Gareth Moreton: Hi everyone, This might be a painfully basic question, but I'm just trying to get to grips with the difference between Lazarus packages and FPC packages.  How do FPC packages work normally and what's their relation to Lazarus packages? I