On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 13:11:53 +0000 Walter Prins <wpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>[...] > Just thinking out loud (probably a bad idea) but: > > Would it perhaps be possible to treat this as a type of optimization > however? Which is to say, if the called routine makes no changes to > the passed record, then it should not matter whether compiler > implicitly const passes the parameter or copies it? (If the routine > *does* change the passed record then it does the normal thing.) Of > course I have no idea whether the dataflow analysis I imagine needed > to support this is whatsoever plausible to be done without > unacceptable compromises (And even then, I'd guess it's not > something there'd be sufficient appetite for even if in theory it > might be possible...?) It is possible. Note that changing the signature needs a wrapper when creating a proc value: Proc:=@TheOptimizedProc; Mattias _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
