Tomas Hajny wrote: > On 25 May 06, at 0:10, ϸňđ Ęîńŕđĺâńęčé ń mail.ru wrote: > >>>> First parameter is in eax, second in edx (third one is ecx) >> TH> Yes, of course, sorry for confusion... :-( Anyway, loading of the first >> TH> parameter can be still skipped (and the stack frame is probably not >> useful >> TH> in this case either). So you'd get: >> TH> function brol(b: byte; c: byte): byte; assembler; nostackframe; >> TH> asm >> TH> movb %dl,%cl >> TH> rolb %cl,%al >> TH> end ['cl']; >> TH> Tomas >> >> 1. So, is there any problem with including this functions and bit checks >> (bt./bs. in intel assembler: writing (a and (1 shl i)) isn't great too)? > > I guess there is no problem in including it. The > only questions from my point of view are: > > 1) Are they useful in general, so that it would > make sense to include them either in FPC itself > (as opposed to some standalone unit)?
- they must be available for all cpu platforms, so we need at least a generic implementation - for an efficient implementation, this needs a compiler patch so the compiler can really efficiently inline _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
