On 30/12/2021 21:07, Jonas Maebe via fpc-devel wrote:
On 30/12/2021 21:03, Florian Klämpfl via fpc-devel wrote:
Yes, but the question is: if we load a shortint into a register, do we
need to sign extend it to 32/64 bit or not? I tend more and more to
say that we shouldn’t require this.
Hi Marc,
> It took a bit longer than expected, but I'm happy to inform you that the
> Lazarus services are back online.
> For those interested in why it took longer, I'll explain at the end of
> the message.
Are you aware that there is a problem with the forum?
It will change any single quote
> Am 30.12.2021 um 20:57 schrieb Jonas Maebe via fpc-devel
> :
>
> On 30/12/2021 20:55, Martin Frb via fpc-devel wrote:
>> On 30/12/2021 20:46, Jonas Maebe via fpc-devel wrote:
>>> On 30/12/2021 18:06, Florian Klämpfl via fpc-devel wrote:
Ah yes, or like this. Nevertheless, the
On 30/12/2021 18:06, Florian Klämpfl via fpc-devel wrote:
Ah yes, or like this. Nevertheless, the question is whether the ldrsb
w0,[x0] is correct or not.
Yes, I was unclear: with the "I don't know/remember where this is done"
I meant "changing the load of the unsigned byte type into a
On 30/12/2021 21:07, Jonas Maebe via fpc-devel wrote:
On 30/12/2021 21:03, Florian Klämpfl via fpc-devel wrote:
Yes, but the question is: if we load a shortint into a register, do
we need to sign extend it to 32/64 bit or not? I tend more and more
to say that we shouldn’t require this.
On 30/12/2021 20:46, Jonas Maebe via fpc-devel wrote:
On 30/12/2021 18:06, Florian Klämpfl via fpc-devel wrote:
Ah yes, or like this. Nevertheless, the question is whether the ldrsb
w0,[x0] is correct or not.
Yes, I was unclear: with the "I don't know/remember where this is
done" I meant
On 30/12/2021 20:57, Jonas Maebe via fpc-devel wrote:
On 30/12/2021 20:55, Martin Frb via fpc-devel wrote:
On 30/12/2021 20:46, Jonas Maebe via fpc-devel wrote:
On 30/12/2021 18:06, Florian Klämpfl via fpc-devel wrote:
Ah yes, or like this. Nevertheless, the question is whether the
ldrsb
On 30/12/2021 21:03, Florian Klämpfl via fpc-devel wrote:
Am 30.12.2021 um 20:57 schrieb Jonas Maebe via fpc-devel
:
On 30/12/2021 20:55, Martin Frb via fpc-devel wrote:
On 30/12/2021 20:46, Jonas Maebe via fpc-devel wrote:
On 30/12/2021 18:06, Florian Klämpfl via fpc-devel wrote:
Ah
On 30/12/2021 20:55, Martin Frb via fpc-devel wrote:
On 30/12/2021 20:46, Jonas Maebe via fpc-devel wrote:
On 30/12/2021 18:06, Florian Klämpfl via fpc-devel wrote:
Ah yes, or like this. Nevertheless, the question is whether the ldrsb
w0,[x0] is correct or not.
Yes, I was unclear: with the
On 30/12/2021 21:28, Martin Frb via fpc-devel wrote:
Well the issue is, that at some time it needs to be extended, as the
full expression is
Result := Result + (pn8^ shr 7) and ((not pn8^) shr 6);
Result is either 64 or 32 depending on architecture.
pn8 is pint8
On intel
- only the byte is
On 30-12-2021 23:42, Bart via fpc-devel wrote:
Hi Marc,
It took a bit longer than expected, but I'm happy to inform you that the
Lazarus services are back online.
For those interested in why it took longer, I'll explain at the end of
the message.
Are you aware that there is a problem with
On 28/12/2021 22:51, Bart via fpc-devel wrote:
On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 9:38 PM Jonas Maebe via fpc-devel
wrote:
https://gitlab.com/freepascal.org/fpc/source/-/issues/37875
OK, but from reading that it is still unclear to me wether this is a bug or not.
It's something that is annoying, but
On 29/12/2021 00:48, Martin Frb via fpc-devel wrote:
I don't have an M1 myself, but according to the data from the thread on
the lazarus mail list, there is a bug in the 3.3.1 asm generator for M1
var pn8: pint8; // pointer signed byte
In the below expression ...(not pn8^)...
"pn8^" is
Am 30.12.21 um 14:52 schrieb Jonas Maebe via fpc-devel:
On 29/12/2021 00:48, Martin Frb via fpc-devel wrote:
I don't have an M1 myself, but according to the data from the thread
on the lazarus mail list, there is a bug in the 3.3.1 asm generator
for M1
var pn8: pint8; // pointer signed byte
On 30/12/2021 17:16, Florian Klämpfl via fpc-devel wrote:
Am 30.12.21 um 14:52 schrieb Jonas Maebe via fpc-devel:
On 29/12/2021 00:48, Martin Frb via fpc-devel wrote:
I don't have an M1 myself, but according to the data from the thread
on the lazarus mail list, there is a bug in the 3.3.1 asm
> Am 30.12.2021 um 17:51 schrieb Jonas Maebe via fpc-devel
> :
>
> On 30/12/2021 17:16, Florian Klämpfl via fpc-devel wrote:
>> Am 30.12.21 um 14:52 schrieb Jonas Maebe via fpc-devel:
>>> On 29/12/2021 00:48, Martin Frb via fpc-devel wrote:
I don't have an M1 myself, but according to the
On 30/12/2021 17:16, Florian Klämpfl via fpc-devel wrote:
Am 30.12.21 um 14:52 schrieb Jonas Maebe via fpc-devel:
On 29/12/2021 00:48, Martin Frb via fpc-devel wrote:
I don't have an M1 myself, but according to the data from the thread
on the lazarus mail list, there is a bug in the 3.3.1 asm
17 matches
Mail list logo
