Am 18.01.20 um 12:53 schrieb Sven Barth via fpc-devel:
Am 18.01.2020 um 12:46 schrieb Florian Klämpfl:
Am 16.01.20 um 23:22 schrieb J. Gareth Moreton:
Hey everyone,
Maybe I'm being a bit pedantic with this, but must we abide by C/C++
standards and go by the name __m128 etc. for the 128-bit data type?
They can be added additionally. After some thinking, I came to the
conclusion we should first go with the same naming C uses (as we do in
every library header meanwhile), on top of this some more pascalish
way can be added.
But these are not library headers. These are going to be base language
types and I don't see a real reason to follow the C convention here,
only because they were the first and other developers might easily
recognize them this way. As mentioned in my other mail we don't have the
name conflict problem that C/C++ faced when adding these types.
* there is a lot of example code out there for C, and same naming makes
it much easier to use it in FPC. Actually, I encountered this already
when playing with some C examples from SO. Even though I am very
familiar with this topic, I ended up to put the C code into godbolt to
find out which assembler instructions it uses and then I tried to find
the right FPC intrinsics (we don't :(). Lesson learned :)
* finding a systematic, pascal-like naming scheme is not easy, there are
countless cases to consider
* they are part of the system unit, so they are prone to name clashes
(this is something I were thinking to try: if they could be moved
without too much hazzle into a seperate unit)
_______________________________________________
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
