Am 22.01.2014 00:27, schrieb Martin Frb: > On 21/01/2014 21:28, Florian Klämpfl wrote: >> Am 20.01.2014 01:18, schrieb Martin: >> >>> It used >>> (taicpu(p).oper[1]^.reg<>taicpu(hp1).oper[0]^^.ref^.base) and >>> (taicpu(p).oper[1]^.reg<>taicpu(hp1).oper[0]^^.ref^.index) then >>> but should only compare the supregister part >>> I replaced that >>> not(RegInOp(getsupreg(taicpu(p).oper[1]^.reg),taicpu(hp1).oper[0]^)) >>> then >>> >>> uncommented, and tested. >>> It does catch a big lot of occurrences. >> Can you post some example code? It might be worth to think about >> improving this already in at the node level. >> >> > > I will try to find some. (I just enabled it, and put a writeln in there, > to see, if it was triggered. Then run the tests and buli Lazarus. > > In the meantime, what about the other additions/changes? > > I already wrote code for them, and mailed it. > So what I need to know: How to best go on to get them accepted and into > the compiler? >
Submit them to a bug report, I can look during the weekend into them. _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
