Re: [fpc-devel] Looking for some general clarification on how exactly revision #43175 "fixes" bugtracker issue #0036139

2019-10-12 Thread Martin Frb
On 13/10/2019 01:54, Ben Grasset wrote: I guess this doesn't matter too much in the grand scheme of things, but I'm somewhat confused by it, so I thought I'd ask. Specifically, the reporter of that issue, calling themselves "Alexander", used the following program as an "example" of what they

Re: [fpc-devel] Looking for some general clarification on how exactly revision #43175 "fixes" bugtracker issue #0036139

2019-10-12 Thread wkitty42
On 10/12/19 7:54 PM, Ben Grasset wrote: Generally speaking, I would expect any compiler that is *capable* of realizing that the while loop has zero chance of *ever being entered at all* in the first place to remove the loop from its final codegen entirely, because there's no logical reason for

[fpc-devel] Looking for some general clarification on how exactly revision #43175 "fixes" bugtracker issue #0036139

2019-10-12 Thread Ben Grasset
I guess this doesn't matter too much in the grand scheme of things, but I'm somewhat confused by it, so I thought I'd ask. Specifically, the reporter of that issue, calling themselves "Alexander", used the following program as an "example" of what they called "too aggressive optimization": progra

[fpc-devel] 0036144: Wrong Dwarf2/3/4 info for array (all array, but affects bitpacked) / incorrect use of DW_AT_bit_stride

2019-10-12 Thread Martin
I have a few wishes with regards to: https://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=36144 1) FpDebug detects fpc as dwarf provider, and checks the fpc version. Based on this it can interpret the misplaced tags, and work around the issue. I have now configured 3.3.0 as the cut-off for the workaround (s