On 2022-01-13 10:28, Ben Grasset via fpc-devel wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 3:28 AM Alexander Grotewohl via fpc-devel
wrote:
32bit on Windows 64-bit uses Wow64.. which has a bit of overhead as
an emulation layer. I believe it's the same one they use for ARM64
too.
It should be kept in
On 1/13/22 10:58, Ben Grasset via fpc-devel wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 1:58 AM Nikolay Nikolov via fpc-devel
wrote:
I haven't tested in Windows, but it would be very strange and
suspicious if the results are very different.
It would be neither of those things. The exception
On 1/13/22 10:50, Ben Grasset via fpc-devel wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 1:25 AM Nikolay Nikolov via fpc-devel
wrote:
We do care about scientific code as well as fast code, that's why
we support both the FPU and SSE2+ (as well as AVX, etc.).
FPC *chooses *not to generate x87 FPU
On 1/13/2022 12:48 AM, Nikolay Nikolov via fpc-devel wrote:
The i386 compiler uses the x87 FPU for floating point. The x87
supports the 32-bit single precision floating point type, the 64-bit
double precision floating point type and the 80-bit extended precision
extended floating point type.
In the below code compiled with 3.2.3 (today and early Dec)
when the exception is reached the app exits.
There is no code from finally, nor from except block executed.
The "randomize" is just to put some code into each block. No special
meaning otherwise.
This issue is on Win64. (works for
On 1/13/22 16:33, Nikolay Nikolov wrote:
On 1/13/22 10:58, Ben Grasset via fpc-devel wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 1:58 AM Nikolay Nikolov via fpc-devel
wrote:
I haven't tested in Windows, but it would be very strange and
suspicious if the results are very different.
It would
On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 9:20 AM Travis Siegel via fpc-devel <
fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org> wrote:
> I wasn't aware of the whole MS not supporting the FPU thing, that was
> the missing puzzle piece.
>
It's not a realistic concern in actuality. There's a reason almost every
other compiler just
On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 11:38 PM Nikolay Nikolov via fpc-devel <
fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org> wrote:
> For the record, I did try make cycle for ppc386 and ppcx64 on my Windows
> 10 (with Windows Defender turned on) and both finished in exactly 42
> seconds :)
>
Not surprising that you closed
On 1/14/22 03:18, Ben Grasset via fpc-devel wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 11:28 AM Nikolay Nikolov via fpc-devel
wrote:
So, instead of giving actual benchmark data on the Windows
performance, you speculate by claiming that having faster
exception handling matters, and then you
On 1/14/22 06:45, Ben Grasset via fpc-devel wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 11:38 PM Nikolay Nikolov via fpc-devel
wrote:
For the record, I did try make cycle for ppc386 and ppcx64 on my
Windows 10 (with Windows Defender turned on) and both finished in
exactly 42 seconds :)
Not
On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 11:28 AM Nikolay Nikolov via fpc-devel <
fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org> wrote:
> So, instead of giving actual benchmark data on the Windows performance,
> you speculate by claiming that having faster exception handling matters,
> and then you immediately debunk your own
On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 9:48 AM Nikolay Nikolov via fpc-devel <
fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org> wrote:
> What do other win64 compilers do? Do they generate x87 FPU code for 64-bit
> Windows?
>
Yes. Given the following:
#include
long double do_three(long double x, long double y, long double z)
On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 10:18 PM Nikolay Nikolov via fpc-devel <
fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org> wrote:
> Just for the record, is this with antivirus off or on and which antivirus
> program?
>
I have no anti-virus actively installed or enabled on an ongoing basis at
all. I just occasionally do
On 1/14/22 05:55, Ben Grasset via fpc-devel wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 10:18 PM Nikolay Nikolov via fpc-devel
wrote:
Just for the record, is this with antivirus off or on and which
antivirus program?
I have no anti-virus actively installed or enabled on an ongoing basis
at
Am 14.01.2022 um 03:15 schrieb Ben Grasset via fpc-devel:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 9:48 AM Nikolay Nikolov via fpc-devel
wrote:
What do other win64 compilers do? Do they generate x87 FPU code
for 64-bit Windows?
Yes. Given the following:
#include
long double do_three(long double
Am 14.01.2022 um 05:20 schrieb Ben Grasset via fpc-devel:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 9:20 AM Travis Siegel via fpc-devel
wrote:
I wasn't aware of the whole MS not supporting the FPU thing, that was
the missing puzzle piece.
It's not a realistic concern in actuality. There's a reason
32bit on Windows 64-bit uses Wow64.. which has a bit of overhead as an
emulation layer. I believe it's the same one they use for ARM64 too. I can only
guess at how optimally it works performance-wise, but compiling a couple
thousand-liner utils was annoying. You could (at least on the machine I
On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 1:58 AM Nikolay Nikolov via fpc-devel <
fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org> wrote:
> I haven't tested in Windows, but it would be very strange and suspicious
> if the results are very different.
>
It would be neither of those things. The exception handling on x64 Windows
is
On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 3:28 AM Alexander Grotewohl via fpc-devel <
fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org> wrote:
> 32bit on Windows 64-bit uses Wow64.. which has a bit of overhead as an
> emulation layer. I believe it's the same one they use for ARM64 too.
>
It should be kept in mind also that neither
On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 1:25 AM Nikolay Nikolov via fpc-devel <
fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org> wrote:
> We do care about scientific code as well as fast code, that's why we
> support both the FPU and SSE2+ (as well as AVX, etc.).
>
FPC *chooses *not to generate x87 FPU instructions on 64-bit
20 matches
Mail list logo
