On 9 December 2011 09:55, Vincent Snijders wrote:
> Can you compile the fpc version for 32 bits (may make some difference)
> and run it on windows (probably make no difference) to reduce the
> differences in platform when you compare with Delphi?
---FPC 2.4.5 (r17953 from fix
2011/12/9 Graeme Geldenhuys :
> On 8 December 2011 21:39, Florian Klämpfl wrote:
>> Can you please post your test program? On my core 2 duo it is only 10
>> times slower.
>
> Attached in the first post. Here is my console output for compiling
> and running that test program.
Can you compile the f
On 8 December 2011 21:39, Florian Klämpfl wrote:
> Can you please post your test program? On my core 2 duo it is only 10
> times slower.
Attached in the first post. Here is my console output for compiling
and running that test program.
-[ FPC under linux ]---
Am 08.12.2011 19:38, schrieb Graeme Geldenhuys:
> 2011/12/8 Tomas Hajny :
>> that FPC has ever claimed performing functionality at the same speed as
>> Delphi...
>
> We all know FPC is much slower that Delphi... we live with it. But a
> function being 529x slower, and being the default implementat
Hi,
On 8/12/2011 8:50 μμ, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
On 8 December 2011 18:41, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
And? The conclusion is what we concluded years ago: be as delphi
compatible as possible else people start to cry soon or later. The funny
thing is only that this time the people cry who didn't
On 8 December 2011 18:38, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
> 2011/12/8 Tomas Hajny :
>> that FPC has ever claimed performing functionality at the same speed as
>> Delphi...
>
> We all know FPC is much slower that Delphi... we live with it. But a
> function being 529x slower, and being the default implemen
At 10:50 AM 12/8/2011, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
On 8 December 2011 18:41, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
>
> And? The conclusion is what we concluded years ago: be as delphi
> compatible as possible else people start to cry soon or later. The funny
> thing is only that this time the people cry who didn
On 8 December 2011 18:41, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
>
> And? The conclusion is what we concluded years ago: be as delphi
> compatible as possible else people start to cry soon or later. The funny
> thing is only that this time the people cry who didn't draw this
> conclusion yet.
I'll be the first
2011/12/8 Tomas Hajny :
> that FPC has ever claimed performing functionality at the same speed as
> Delphi...
We all know FPC is much slower that Delphi... we live with it. But a
function being 529x slower, and being the default implementation
Well, now that just makes we cringe. And as Jurgen
Tomas Hajny schrieb:
Since when does the definition of "compatibility" include the same speed?
Well, a factor of multiple hundreds is not just a different speed. It
makes the function unusalbe for the same purpose.
___
fpc-pascal maillist - f
On Thu, December 8, 2011 17:24, Jürgen Hestermann wrote:
> Schindler Karl-Michael schrieb:
>> How disgraceful is a replacement by a less accurate solution and how
>> about the grace to implement your own solution ;-)
>>
>>
> You miss the whole point. It's not a matter of coding effort but of
> back
Am 08.12.2011 17:24, schrieb Jürgen Hestermann:
>
> In other situations the Delphi compatibilty is pulled up even if the
> implementation is outrageous. But suddenly everybody wants to depart
> from Delphi. Strange.
And? The conclusion is what we concluded years ago: be as delphi
compatible as po
Schindler Karl-Michael schrieb:
How disgraceful is a replacement by a less accurate solution and how about the
grace to implement your own solution ;-)
You miss the whole point. It's not a matter of coding effort but of
backwards compatibility with existing code and also with expectations
On 8 December 2011 12:56, Schindler Karl-Michael wrote:
> about a more accurate method, which is too expensive for your application at
> the
> moment.
Yeah, I'll just tell my clients that they can't run my app yet, we
need to wait a few more years for Intel and AMD to catch up to my
work. Like th
Why sprinkle ifdefs everywhere? Change all calls to Random with calls to
FastRandom, and have one ifdef there that uses Random in Delphi and a fast
substitute in FPC. Still readable, still fast, and you would be done by
now instead of spending so much time arguing about it. Plus, should Delphi
d
> From: Graeme Geldenhuys
> Subject: Re: [fpc-pascal] Re: Why is Random(255) some 529x slower
> comparedDelphi 7?
> To: FPC-Pascal users discussions
> Message-ID:
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> On 8 December 2011 11:35, Schindler Karl-Michael wrote:
>> now,
16 matches
Mail list logo
