Maybe I've fallen into a trap of sunken cost fallacy or being too proud
of my own code rather than properly looking at what's already
available. Part of my fear with using the constant propagation code is
that it constantly copies and transforms the nodes every time the pure
function needs to
On 02/05/2020 20:27, J. Gareth Moreton wrote:
> Well, as I've found, there is no straightforward method to actually
> determine if a function is pure or not. For example, if it stumbles
> upon a procedural call, which may be itself (recursion), it doesn't
> immediately know if that call is to a
Well, as I've found, there is no straightforward method to actually
determine if a function is pure or not. For example, if it stumbles
upon a procedural call, which may be itself (recursion), it doesn't
immediately know if that call is to a procedure that is itself pure or
not. There are
Am 01.05.20 um 11:41 schrieb J. Gareth Moreton:
I'm still learning these things - bear with me! I'll get one set up
when I have something preliminary working.
At the moment I haven't been able to unite the constant propagation code
with my pure functions because they work in fundamentally
Compiling Lazarus trunk with the latest fpc:
components/ideintf/propedits.pp(6019,28) Fatal: Internal error 200709171
Colin
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
