On 07/29/2010 09:41 PM, Hans-Peter Diettrich wrote:
What makes you think that this is different from x86?
With X86/32 Linux, the applicationaddress of a threadvar in the ASM
instruction is the same for all threads. The ASM instruction is done
with a GS: prefix, thus instead of the DS sector,
Hi,
I've playing a bit with fpWeb and have some suggestions and questions:
- In TFPWebAction.DoHandleRequest if request is not handled by OnRequest
and inherited, the content is copied to the response and handled is
checked by the response content.
- FContensts will be always created even
On Tue, 2010-07-27 at 15:19 +0200, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
Op 2010-07-27 13:54, Joost van der Sluis het geskryf:
If you need a new feature and you can code it yourself. Go ahead and
code. (You can always ask questions or discuss things here)
No point in wasting my time implementing
Michael Schnell schrieb:
What makes you think that this is different from x86?
With X86/32 Linux, the applicationaddress of a threadvar
Please distinguish: Segmented or Flat address?
Only FS and GS can add an non-zero offset, to the *offset* given in the
instruction. The sum of both is the
Florian Klaempfl schrieb:
The first version of the OO rewrite branch is ready for alpha testing :-)
Well, the alpha test revealed some problems, that have been fixed
(except one).
Now the differences between branch and updated trunk already result in
problems[1], that make testing the OO
On 30 Jul 2010, at 20:55, Hans-Peter Diettrich wrote:
Florian Klaempfl schrieb:
The first version of the OO rewrite branch is ready for alpha testing :-)
Well, the alpha test revealed some problems, that have been fixed (except
one).
Now the differences between branch and updated
Am 30.07.2010 20:55, schrieb Hans-Peter Diettrich:
Florian Klaempfl schrieb:
The first version of the OO rewrite branch is ready for alpha testing
:-)
Well, the alpha test revealed some problems, that have been fixed
(except one).
Now the differences between branch and updated trunk
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 20:55:20 +0200
Hans-Peter Diettrich drdiettri...@aol.com wrote:
[...]
[1] Lazarus (code tools) also have problems with the recent update. Will
the parsers be updated soon? Who is doing that?
What problem?
Mattias
___
fpc-devel
Hello,
I have discovered that the pointer returned by typeinfo() builtin in FPC is very different from one
returned in Delphi. What Delphi returns points to rough equivalent of FPC's INIT$_typename
structure, so one may examine the structure to figure out the 'managed' fields. FPC, however,
In our previous episode, Hans-Peter Diettrich said:
As a first step, I consider the result of
cd compiler
time make cycle
with a hot disk cache before and after a change as good enough to see if
a change hurts performance.
What's the Windows equivalent of time?
(I wouldn't do
Jonas Maebe schrieb:
Now the differences between branch and updated trunk already result
in problems[1], that make testing the OO compiler near impossible.
This raises the question, how to proceed with the integration of
both version?
That would be easier to answer if you would at least
Florian Klämpfl schrieb:
Problem is: breaking trunk too often scares even more people to use
trunk. But we need people using trunk to get it tested as well as
possible so we must do our best to keep trunk also in a good shape, see
below.
Full ACK.
Most probably my assumption was wrong, that
12 matches
Mail list logo
