Tue, 10 Jul 2018 03:36:01 +1000 Thorsten Engler wrote:
>> -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?
>
I am investigating this, because similar artefacts can be seen in the
new PPI related stretched images in Lazarus.
Add below code to a form with 2 TImages on it. (on windows / fpc 3.1.1
39275)
It stretches the image to 3 times it size.
The magnified result (bottom part)
1) For a single p
Btw, a 2nd issue.
If you put the dark read pixels on the right most edge of the image
(reduce width to 22), then it is missing in the stretched image.
ScFI := TFPCompactImgRGBA8Bit.Create(22, 30);
...
ScFI.Colors[20,i] := c;
//c.blue := 10;
c.Red := $7F7F;
ScFI.Colors[21,i]
Compile-time evaluation will always be a
performance hit for the compiler
unfortunately, even for the simplest of
algorithms, which is why I feel that only
those functions that the programmer says
are pure should be evaluated. If anyone
has ideas for performance enhancements
though, feel fre
J. Gareth Moreton schrieb am Mi., 11. Juli
2018, 15:13:
> float128 does sound like a good solution
> overall. I'm not sure where to begin with
> that though, or even what to call it for
> Pascal, since "float128" is distinctly C-
> like! It could be something to put on my
> list of possible resea
Thanks - I'll take a look to see if it's usable. Otherwise, any float128 type
would probably be called "Quadruple" if we're going by the naming convention
used
in Object Pascal and Visual Basic, for example.
Gareth
On Wed 11/07/18 17:54 , "Sven Barth" pascaldra...@googlemail.com sent:
> J. Gare
