Hi, I would welcome inlining of (simple) asm routines. Lately I wanted to use the BEXTR instruction to speed up some inlined bit reading functions. As there's no intrinsic for it and including even a simple assembly method disables inlining, it didn't go well.
As for using a BEXTR intrinsic instead: I'd like to try to add it, if it's welcomed. Judging by searching for POPCNT it shouldn't be that much work, but I'm likely to miss something - any advice is welcomed. There's at least one catch that I know of - there's no CPU target that supports BMI1 but not BMI2 (there are several such AMD cpu-s), so it should be added as well. David On 13. 5. 2018 4:28, J. Gareth Moreton wrote: > - Research possibility for 'inline' support for certain assembler routines. > > For situations where speed is of the highest priority, there are some > internal functions such as Int and Frac that can theoretically be > inlined (a procedure call is quite expensive, around 50 cycles), but > because they are written in pure assembly language, the compiler will > never inline them. I'm still working out quite a bit of theory, but I > believe I will be able to allow the inlining of routines that are leaf > functions (don't have CALLs of their own) and declared as > 'nostackframe'. Such a system would allow the support of 'intrinsics' > that can be composed programmatically rather than as internal routines, > though it's not exactly what Florian is planning. Even if Florian does > go for a different approach for intrinsics, I like to think that such > inline support will have uses elsewhere, especially some of the routines > like "GetStackFrame" (I think) that simply return the value of RSP (if > it's 'inline', which it is actually declared as in the unit, the return > value will be far more accurate). _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
