Thank you Anthony, Admittedly I was a little nervous, wondering if you guys might think "what's this squirt doing submitting something that isn't even a bug?!"
Good to know that it looks reasonable. I did do a full build of FPC and Lazarus with it to ensure it actually compiled and ran (Lazarus appeared to work without any problems), and also did a compilation of a test project that printed the output of a function that set a 64-bit result (to ensure a 64-bit register was used). It's not perfect though because there are some minor hacks in the assembler instruction list in order to get the compiler to look out for 32-bit signed opcodes. A cleaner solution would be to revert the changes to the assembler list, but fix the compiler's handling of signed operands, since I think it only handles signed bytes currently (which is understandable, as signed 32-bit immediates only first appeared with x86-64 extensions). Thanks once again - I hope it actually works and gets merged. Call it a source of personal pride if it does! Gareth On Tue 26/09/17 13:47 , Anthony Walter sys...@gmail.com sent: > J, > Thanks for the contribution. I looked over your patch and seems reasonable, > though I didn't try building fpc with it. We need more people like you > helping to improve the compiler. Thanks! > _______________________________________________ > fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org > http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel [1] > > > > Links: > ------ > [1] > http://secureweb.fast.net.uk/parse.php?redirect=http://lists.freepascal.org > /cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel > _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
