Am 21.10.19 um 00:57 schrieb J. Gareth Moreton:
Hi everyone,
I'm trying to make some optimisation improvements to UComplex so the
compiler can take advantage of SSE2 or AVX features without needing to
write specialised code (other than using the "vectorcall" directive
under Win64). I am havi
On 21/10/2019 20:00, Florian Klämpfl wrote:
What's the problem with
{$push}
{$codealign RECORDMIN=16}
type complex = record
re : real;
im : real;
end;
{$pop}
?
Hi Florian,
I tried that, but that puts each individual field on a 16-byte boundary
(an
Am 21.10.19 um 21:42 schrieb J. Gareth Moreton:
On 21/10/2019 20:00, Florian Klämpfl wrote:
What's the problem with
{$push}
{$codealign RECORDMIN=16}
type complex = record
re : real;
im : real;
end;
{$pop}
?
Hi Florian,
I tried that, but that puts
I'm going to have to keep trying. So far that gets me the following
(some debug lines I inserted into the compiler):
record UCOMPLEX.complex
- alignment = 8
- aggregatealignment = 8
- structalignment = 8
- size = 16
I was wrong about what I said about RECORDMIN=16... the alignment fields
are
Okay, I got the values to 16 at last! I needed to include {$PACKRECORDS
C} as well. It's ultimately very fiddly though.
Gareth aka. Kit
On 21/10/2019 22:53, J. Gareth Moreton wrote:
I'm going to have to keep trying. So far that gets me the following
(some debug lines I inserted into the co
Hi everyone,
This is a very low-level semantic issue, but I'm not particularly keen
on how static methods are defined in classes.
*class function *StaticMethod: Integer; *static;*
What's wrong with it? Well, it's an issue of consistency that gets me,
plus 'static' is only valid as part of a
This is a long read, so strap in!
Well, I finally got it to work - the required type defintion was as follows:
{$push}
{$codealign RECORDMIN=16}
{$PACKRECORDS C}
{ This record forces "complex" to be aligned to a 16-byte boundary }
type align_dummy = record
filler: array[0..1] of real;
Optimisations to uComplex ready for wider-scale testing:
https://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=36202
Gareth aka. Kit
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
___
fpc-devel maillist -
Am 22.10.2019 um 01:19 schrieb J. Gareth Moreton:
This is a very low-level semantic issue, but I'm not particularly keen
on how static methods are defined in classes.
Not being "keen" on an existing, established syntax is not reason enough
to change it.
Please also note (to probably annoy y
Fair enough. Thanks Sven. It just seemed to be a bit of an anomaly in
my eyes. (The ambiguity shouldn't be an issue because of the semicolon
following directives)
Just something I thought I'd bring up.
Gareth aka. Kit
On 22/10/2019 06:17, Sven Barth via fpc-devel wrote:
Am 22.10.2019 um
J. Gareth Moreton schrieb am Di., 22. Okt.
2019, 07:21:
> Fair enough. Thanks Sven. It just seemed to be a bit of an anomaly in my
> eyes. (The ambiguity shouldn't be an issue because of the semicolon
> following directives)
>
The parser will only know whether it's a directive or part of the
11 matches
Mail list logo
