Am 19.03.2019 um 20:17 schrieb J. Gareth Moreton:
> I would have allowed writing to the stack with inline assembly functions if a
> way could be found to ensure that the
> compiled program behaves the same way whether the function is inlined or
> called directly (e.g. through a direct CALL or
>
On 2019-03-19 20:17, J. Gareth Moreton wrote:
If you want to inline regular functions with assembler blocks, you'll
need the attached bug fixes. The rest I'll leave up to you.
Thanks, I'll have a look at the patch this weekend.
What is Florian's and your vision for Free Pascal? You already
> On Mar 19, 2019, at 3:17 PM, J. Gareth Moreton
> wrote:
>
> What is Florian's and your vision for Free Pascal? You already have a
> cross-platform Object Pascal compiler... what's next for it? Does any of my
> proposals even have a place in that vision, because honestly I don't know if
I would have allowed writing to the stack with inline assembly functions
if a way could be found to ensure that the compiled program behaves the
same way whether the function is inlined or called directly (e.g. through a
direct CALL or a function pointer), which would otherwise require shifting
- Reply to message -
Subject: Re: [fpc-devel] Successful implementation
of inline support for pure assembler routines on x86
Date: 2019. gada 17. marts 19:38:03
From: Florian Klämpfl
To:
> Am 15.03.19 um 11:32 schrieb J. Gareth Moreton:
> * using inline assembler is always the worst
Am 15.03.19 um 11:32 schrieb J. Gareth Moreton:
Hi everyone,
Sorry for the slightly long-winded title. This was something I've been
working on for the past few weeks to allow the use of "inline" with
certain x86 assembler routines, subject to restrictions for safety
reasons. I have
> 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
J. Gareth Moreton schrieb am Fr., 15. März
2019, 12:33:
> P.S. Though this feature can be used for implementing intrinsics, it is
> not a direct replacement for them because instructions like SHUFPS cannot
> be flexibly encoded due to its immediate operand (i.e. it has to be a raw
> number... it
Hi everyone,
Sorry for the slightly long-winded title. This was something I've been
working on for the past few weeks to allow the use of "inline" with certain
x86 assembler routines, subject to restrictions for safety reasons. I
have successfully written code that implements this support
