startup and return to
the pool instead of freeing. It would make the compiler utilize more memory but
that’s a good trade off for me personally. This is especially a good idea
because the compiler is a one pass program so leaks over the long term aren’t a
problem.
Regards,
AM, J. Gareth Moreton
> wrote:
>
> The overhaul primarily increases the speed of compilation, but it makes some
> minor improvements to conditional branches here and there. Nevertheless, I'm
> always happy to find a saving here and there in the compiled assembly
> language!
to the
linking phase.
Regards,
Ryan Joseph
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
?
Regards,
Ryan Joseph
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
s that PPU versions changed so I can’t use the units at the default
system locations. Not sure how the compiler decides but it was looking for
units at the 3.1.1 install location which is an older PPU version.
There should be a single command to specify a top-level directory that wins out
o
Got everything building finally but the time difference is so small I'll need
to make a script to compile multiple times and average all the runs. Is it even
worth the time doing that?
Regards,
Ryan Joseph
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc
opy)
--
File to patch:
> On Dec 9, 2018, at 7:11 AM, J. Gareth Moreton
> wrote:
>
> Had any luck with this?
Regards,
Ryan Joseph
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/
ail?
> On Dec 9, 2018, at 8:36 AM, Ryan Joseph wrote:
>
> Couldn’t figure out the patching. I tried a dry run but it doesn’t seem to
> find the file.
Regards,
Ryan Joseph
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.free
pecial switches to show compiles times more
accurate?
Regards,
Ryan Joseph
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
testsuite can be
> finished as well. There are still some extra failures that do not happen with
> the built-in code generator, but most tests work fine.
What does this mean for end users? Do we get better debugging support in LLDB?
Regards,
Ryan Joseph
___
quot; and no generic specialize or <> is in the
>
> class generic x: TObject;
>
> Can it be shared across all generics of a kind?
>
> The code density in the cache would be good for all common generics.
I don’t get what this is trying to accomplish o
> On Dec 2, 2018, at 4:00 PM, Sven Barth via fpc-devel
> wrote:
>
> Please report as a bug.
I don’t get a bug on this in the trunk version I’m using. Maybe it was fixed?
Regards,
Ryan Joseph
___
fpc-devel maillist
> On Sep 10, 2018, at 4:23 PM, Ryan Joseph wrote:
>
> I think I can use tcallcandidates.create_operator to test this but what do I
> pass for the call param node?
I didn’t get an answer on this but I was able to figure it out for myself,
albeit only for arithmetic operators,
_EQ:
p1:=caddnode.create(equaln,p1,p2);
_GT :
p1:=caddnode.create(gtn,p1,p2);
Regards,
Ryan Joseph
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/ma
e preferred method?
p1:=csubscriptnode.create(default_property,p1); { p1 being the load node for
“wrapper” }
Regards,
Ryan Joseph
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
and parameter list and return a found
or not found answer? I could start pulling stuff out of do_typecheckpass() but
I suspect there’s already a way to do this.
Regards,
Ryan Joseph
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http
> On Aug 2, 2018, at 2:41 PM, Ryan Joseph wrote:
>
> So the way FreeInstance is called by adding it within a destructor isn’t
> exactly what I needed because it requires a destructor actually be present in
> the class.
>
> The next thing I’d like to try is adding a
);
begin
end;
so I could call the procedure with a parameter and have a block node (I think
begin/end is a block node) so I could add some statements inside that. I’m
having fun learning how the compiler works but it’s pretty complicated without
any guidance.
Thanks.
Regards,
Ryan
.
Thanks guys.
Regards,
Ryan Joseph
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
=potype_destructor) then
begin
if is_class(current_structdef) then
begin
srsym:=search_struct_member(current_structdef,'FREEINSTANCE');
Regards,
Ryan Joseph
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.f
> On Jul 31, 2018, at 9:56 AM, Ryan Joseph wrote:
>
> then how does it get invoked then? there must be some node added somewhere
> but I can’t find it.
I’m still trying to find this with no luck. I suspect there’s a call node added
when the compiler detects a destructor was c
it get invoked then? there must be some node added somewhere but
I can’t find it.
Regards,
Ryan Joseph
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Looking at the FPC source now and it appears FreeInstance is a hidden method
which is not called from the TObject destructor.
Where/how is this method called in the source? I’ve been in the debugger for
over an hour and I still can’t find it.
Regards,
Ryan Joseph
ilar system to handle pure
> functions.
I’ve looked at the FPC sources recently but I still don’t understand the
basics. I see lots of TDef,TSym,TSymTable classes. What are those used for? You
mentioned nodes and I wonder if that’s what those are.
Rega
> 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,
is anyone interested in helping me do this or
answering basic questions on the compiler architecture?
Regards,
Ryan Joseph
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
I could have used that
at some point over the years.
Regards,
Ryan Joseph
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
t are the performance benefits? It sounds like this is a proposal for a
compiler optimization which we can explicitly opt in to, but what exactly is
the optimization?
If nothing else I like the idea as a way to enforce a function is not accessing
global state. Kind of like const for functions.
301 - 328 of 328 matches
Mail list logo
