On 12/19/2015 11:33 AM, Sven Barth wrote:
Am 19.12.2015 15:54 schrieb
[...]
not really... backwards compatibility and all that... borland's TP and BP
do the same... at least back as far as v6... i can't get to my v5 or v3 to
test but i daresay that they, too, do the same... looking forward fro
Am 19.12.2015 15:54 schrieb :
>
> On 12/18/2015 06:16 AM, R. Diez wrote:
> [...]
>
>> > "for loop variable value reliable after loop?"
>> >
http://lists.freepascal.org/pipermail/fpc-pascal/2015-October/045446.html
>> > [...]
>> > language behaviour that may be unexpected if you are used to
>>
On 19/12/15 15:58, Tobias Giesen wrote:
I optimize my code in such a way that compiler optimizations are
not really needed, but obviously I wouldn't say no if they were
reliable.
Could it be related to this discussion? Do optimizations make apps
less thread safe in FPC?
No. The fact that your
Hello,
I am interested in this problem too. My app is highly multithreaded,
working mostly with TObject descendants such as TStringList and
TCollections. I am ensuring thread safety thru CriticalSections. In fact
I have made my own TThreadSafeStringList.
I have been distributing the app with opti
On 12/18/2015 06:16 AM, R. Diez wrote:
[...]
> "for loop variable value reliable after loop?"
> http://lists.freepascal.org/pipermail/fpc-pascal/2015-October/045446.html
> [...]
> language behaviour that may be unexpected if you are used to
> e.g. C, but that is considered normal in Pascal
Am 19.12.2015 14:19 schrieb "Jonas Maebe" :
>
> On 18/12/15 10:12, Lukasz Sokol wrote:
>>
>> I know FreePascal is not Linux, the Team is not Torvalds etc;)
>> but have you seen this ?
>>
>> https://lwn.net/Articles/233482/
>
>
> Maybe a "volatile" intrinsic, just like we already have an "unaligned"
On 18/12/15 10:12, Lukasz Sokol wrote:
I know FreePascal is not Linux, the Team is not Torvalds etc;)
but have you seen this ?
https://lwn.net/Articles/233482/
Maybe a "volatile" intrinsic, just like we already have an "unaligned"
intrinsic, would indeed be a better idea than adding the possi
Am 18.12.2015 um 12:16 schrieb R. Diez:
>
> I see. Based on that information, and on the issue of function calls
> crossing units, I guess you could rephrase that in much less-friendly
> way. I'm playing evil advocate now: "FreePascal is so simple it can only
> optimise properly the kind of hand-w
R. Diez wrote:
Issuing a generic memory barrier is workable, but it kills performance,
as all variables will be reloaded again. Performance does matter when
working on microcontrollers.
Could I ask for a reality check here. That sounds more like a cache
flush, while a membar only ensures tha
