Hi,
when using inline on a procedure or function, does it completely avoid
the call by copying anything inside the begin ... end block to the
right place?
Yes, that's the idea.
INLINE is a suggestion, not obligation: sometimes they are compiled
with CALL. It looks especially not great
Hi, Eugene,
Wednesday, August 2, 2006, 8:25:50 PM:
EM No, I don't, and it's FPC's make that is called. That's the strangest. Maybe
EM someone can explain, where the echo command is expected to be taken? Maybe
EM I missed something simple like a symlink from echo to gecho?
EM Sincerely yours,
EM
AB In order to implement threading in DOS I will need to use some type of
AB mutex, but would like to implement it the FPC way.
AB Does FPC implement platform independent mutexes and/or semaphores? Or
AB must each platform use it's own OS specific versions?
Michael Van Canneyt can answer this
First parameter is in eax, second in edx (third one is ecx)
TH Yes, of course, sorry for confusion... :-( Anyway, loading of the first
TH parameter can be still skipped (and the stack frame is probably not useful
TH in this case either). So you'd get:
TH function brol(b: byte; c: byte): byte;
FK Jonas Maebe wrote:
On 24 mei 2006, at 17:30, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
Not really because it is simply a tar ball of several .tar.gz. Because
gzip is spread wider, we use this instead of bzip2/7zip.
Isn't bzip2 available more or less everywhere nowadays? (at least where
gzip is available,
JM The application was rejected (without explanation).
JM Jonas
I'll allow myself two remarks:
1. On the code.google.com:
Your search - pascal - did not match any documents.
2. Freepascal is too marginal to support.
(But I like it.)
___
fpc-pascal
I hope you can see the difference between a linker, which is needed no
matte how you want to use the compiler, and a tool like Valgrind or gprof.
VS With this difference, compiling -gv succeeds, even if Valgrind is not
VS installed. Compiling -pg fails, if gprof/cygwin is not installed.
VS
On Wed, 19 Apr 2006, I wrote:
I do neither use Lazarus, nor MSEide, but if executable size is really
important,
L there is something called KOL (I didn't use it either). As I have read, it's
currently
L compilable by FPC.
It's in russian, this is my first source of information about KOL
L 3. speed - not a big deal. Hardware cheap enough.
If you ship programs, it's not you who decide whether hardware is
cheap.
If you do a small repetitive task several millions times, speed may
easily differ hundred times (for example: compiled piece of code fits into
cache, but interpreted
PS. I hoped that this thread will die and I will not waste my time, but
it is alive and I can't hold myself and do write an answer.
To be on topic, I just want to share my thoughts (they do probably differ
from yours), ended with not choosing Lazarus (but I trace its
development a little). I am
10 matches
Mail list logo
