[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> Michael Van Canneyt wrote: > >>Well, if we're going in that direction anyway: >>Why not include all possible assembler instructions then ? >> >>Let's be serious. You must draw the line somewhere. >>I think these instructions are so exotic, they are pollution of the > system unit. > > I agree with Michael. And I think the line is clearly drawn. The FPC > (and more importantly the language syntax itself) design goal, as I > understand it, is to be, as much as possible, platform and architecture > independent and doesn't need to be "polluted" by adding esoteric > functions/(worst yet)operators becuase they are neat on one particular > type of machine and we just program around them everywhere else.
This conclusion is drawn on wrong assumptions: the rot instructions aren't esoteric but supported by at least the four most important CPU platforms (i386, x86_64, powerpc and arm) and needed for efficient cryptographic and graphics algorithms. > Rather, if your application really needs that function, you have > a number of suggestions on how to implement that within your own > application, so do that, but I don't think the compiler should be > expected to do it for you. I didn't saw usable suggestions for non i386 platforms :) _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
