Re: [fpc-pascal] Dynamic arrays performance test.
On 2 mrt 2005, at 07:29, Florian Klaempfl wrote: - FPC's random is probably more complex Indeed. I guess Delphi's is still a simple "(x * prime1) mod prime2" or so. FPC uses the Mersenne twister. Jonas ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Dynamic arrays performance test.
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 11:05:50 +0100, Jonas Maebe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 2 mrt 2005, at 07:29, Florian Klaempfl wrote: > > > - FPC's random is probably more complex > > Indeed. I guess Delphi's is still a simple "(x * prime1) mod prime2" or > so. FPC uses the Mersenne twister. > > Jonas Bingo. That was it. Now the fpc version is at least as fast as the Delphi version on the worst case and twice as fast using dynamic arrays. Agustin ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
[fpc-pascal] undefining multiple defines
Hi,
I'm using several defines like this:
{$define M1}
{ $define M2}
{ $define M3}
{ $define M4}
...
Any time I have to change them, I have to touch all one by one, because
they're mutually exclusive.
Is there method of saying: {$undef M1..M15}?
Or a better basic approach?
TIA,
Marc
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] undefining multiple defines
> I'm using several defines like this:
>
> {$define M1}
> { $define M2}
> { $define M3}
> { $define M4}
>
> Any time I have to change them, I have to touch all one by one, because
> they're mutually exclusive.
>
> Or a better basic approach?
Maybe I am missing something, but why not just have a single define statement,
which you change to
define the one symbol that you want for the current compile? If they are
mutually exclusive, you
never need more than one define, right?
Jeff
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] undefining multiple defines
Am Do, den 03.03.2005 schrieb Jeff Miller um 13:56:
> > I'm using several defines like this:
> >
> > {$define M1}
> > { $define M2}
> > { $define M3}
> > { $define M4}
> >
> > Any time I have to change them, I have to touch all one by one, because
> > they're mutually exclusive.
> >
> > Or a better basic approach?
>
> Maybe I am missing something, but why not just have a single define
> statement, which you change to
> define the one symbol that you want for the current compile? If they are
> mutually exclusive, you
> never need more than one define, right?
No, you don't. Thinking about it a little longer makes sense sometimes
(I'll do next time ;). And explaning the complete problem does, too.
These defines are used several times spread over a bunch of units. It is
possible to use one in unit a and another one in unit b. What i want to
achive is to undefine any previously set defines and be sure there is
only one of them active.
this is used to include some dependant functions from only one central
include file holding all possible versions. And it has to work from the
command line or makefile.
unit a;
...
{$define M1}
...
end.
unit b;
...
{$undef M1-M15}
{$define M2}
...
end.
Marc
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] undefining multiple defines
> unit b;
> ...
> {$undef M1-M15}
Such constructs won't work, for the same reason that variablenames with
numbers in it can't be used as such.
For the compiler it is an alphanumerical identifier, and the number(s) have
no meaning.
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
