On Mon 09/07/18 22:39 , "Bart" bartjun...@gmail.com sent:
> On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 6:59 PM, J. Gareth Moreton
>
> e...@moreton-family.com> wrote:
>
>
> > out, not least because the answer will cause an
> overflow (e.g. the result of
> > A(4,2) has almost 20,000 decimal digits and,
> naïvely,
On Mon 09/07/18 20:53 , wkitt...@windstream.net sent:
>
>
>
>
> sorry for this off-topic post but are you aware that your messages are not
>
> threading into the topic under discussion? every one of your posts looks
> like a
> separate thread and there's nothing to link it to the message
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 6:59 PM, J. Gareth Moreton
wrote:
> out, not least because the answer will cause an overflow (e.g. the result of
> A(4,2) has almost 20,000 decimal digits and, naïvely, takes longer than the
> age
> of the Universe to compute).
Ackerman(4,2) = (2^65536) - 3 (it's
sorry for this off-topic post but are you aware that your messages are not
threading into the topic under discussion? every one of your posts looks like a
separate thread and there's nothing to link it to the message you are actually
responding to... looking at them, there's no references
Am 09.07.2018 um 18:24 schrieb Max Nazhalov via fpc-devel:
Just one question: doesn't all this new stuff introduce another kind
of mess during cross-compiling?
E.g. some complex nested const.expr. "sin(cos(0.12345))" evaluated by
the compiler on x64 (double precision) is not the same as if it
The intention is to perform the analysis of pure functions at the
pre-compilation
stage where all the Pascal code is transmuted into nodes, which are
platform-independent and also have the advantage of not requiring total
rebuilding of a project, since it is these nodes that are stored in PPU
> -Original Message-
> From: fpc-devel On Behalf Of
> Max Nazhalov via fpc-devel
> Sent: Tuesday, 10 July 2018 02:25
>
> Just one question: doesn't all this new stuff introduce another kind
> of mess during cross-compiling?
>
> E.g. some complex nested const.expr. "sin(cos(0.12345))"
Admittedly I have slightly selfish reasons for my proposed improvements. I like
to play around with mathematical programming where loops can run for several
days
or weeks, so even the slimmest of savings adds up to a lot of saved time... and
I
love Object Pascal! Granted I can use assembly
Just one question: doesn't all this new stuff introduce another kind
of mess during cross-compiling?
E.g. some complex nested const.expr. "sin(cos(0.12345))" evaluated by
the compiler on x64 (double precision) is not the same as if it would
be evaluated by the compiled program itself running on
> On Jul 9, 2018, at 3:25 AM, Sven Barth via fpc-devel
> wrote:
>
> It would allow you to declare constants that use those functions with the
> compiler evaluating them at compile time.
That’s a double win then. Very good idea this is.
Regards,
Ryan Joseph
On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 4:43 PM, Thorsten Engler wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: fpc-devel On Behalf Of
>> R0b0t1
>> Sent: Monday, 9 July 2018 07:22
>>
>> There were some other comments touching on reasons for or against a
>> keyword, and I apologize for not speaking to them
I meant to say tan(Pi / 4) in that
example. Sorry. Trying to assign tan(Pi /
2) to something will probably cause an
error, or at the very least be an
interesting test case, because the result
is undefined.
Gareth aka. Kit
On Mon 09/07/18 12:00 , "J. Gareth
Moreton"
Besides being able to assign the function
result to constants, the main benefit is
that, for constant inputs, the result is
deterministic and so the compiler can
calculate this beforehand and replace a
function call with an assignment. For
example, if tan was a regular function, x
:= tan(Pi
Ryan Joseph schrieb am Mo., 9. Juli 2018,
08:45:
>
>
> > On Jul 8, 2018, at 8:50 AM, J. Gareth Moreton
> wrote:
> >
> > With some blessing from Florian on the concept, I've set up a Wiki page
> discussing the design proposals for the support of pure functions, as well
> as some explanation on
I posted this on the main list before but I want to repost here. Last month I
decided finally after years to try working on the compiler and in short time I
was able to add parameters to macros (like in C). The FPC list appeared to
universally despise this idea so I guess I’ll just sit on it
> On Jul 8, 2018, at 10:55 AM, Marco van de Voort wrote:
>
> It doesn't explain why you chose for a modifier rather than preprocessor
> switch.
Performance aside I think it’s useful to mark a function as “pure” so you can
guarantee it’s not messing with global state. I’m sure I could have
> On Jul 8, 2018, at 8:50 AM, J. Gareth Moreton
> wrote:
>
> With some blessing from Florian on the concept, I've set up a Wiki page
> discussing the design proposals for the support of pure functions, as well as
> some explanation on what they actually are.
>
What are the performance
17 matches
Mail list logo
