On the contrary... I'm all for new features if they gel well with the language, although I try to research and theorise how they can benefit the compiler and the code it generates. My current patches haven't been as well-received as I had hoped, possibly due to lack of documentation and provable stability etc. (The biggest one overhauls the x86 Peephole Optimizer by merging 6 passes into 1 for a speed boost of up to 15% on -O3, but some of the individual optimisation routines are more complex as a result, mostly so -O1 and -O2 don't perform worse). I'm wondering now, in the name of project management, if such feature proposals and patches should come with a comprehensive design spec, if not to justify the changes then to at least explain how everything works.
Gareth aka. Kit On Wed 20/02/19 20:33 , Florian Klämpfl flor...@freepascal.org sent: Am 20.02.19 um 08:36 schrieb Paul van Helden: > As a big > fan of the Pascal language, I'd rather break compatibility and see the > language evolve than the stoic attitude of the core devs as seen on this > list. People could change this attitude by contributing to FPC. But very few do constantly with high quality patches. The current FPC devs are simply overloaded with the areas they have to maintain so it is pretty clear that excitement about new features is very low. _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org [1] http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel [2]">http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel Links: ------ [1] mailto:fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org [2] http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
_______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
