That's fair. Looks like I'm going to have to explore and experiment a
lot more to see if I can 'unbreak' some things. What was meant to be a
simple alignment fix has kind of ballooned into much more.
Gareth aka. Kit
On 06/04/2022 22:00, Jonas Maebe via fpc-devel wrote:
On 06/04/2022 22:58,
On 06/04/2022 22:58, J. Gareth Moreton via fpc-devel wrote:
On 06/04/2022 21:16, Jonas Maebe via fpc-devel wrote:
On 06/04/2022 19:20, J. Gareth Moreton via fpc-devel wrote:
I recently made a merge request that initally just fixed the
incorrect memory alignment for __m128 and similar types, bu
I used it because it was easy to hot-swap the constructor in the
definition of __m128 and the like, and it was a quick and convenient way
to ensure the alignment was correct.
Gareth aka. Kit
On 06/04/2022 21:16, Jonas Maebe via fpc-devel wrote:
On 06/04/2022 19:20, J. Gareth Moreton via fpc-d
On 06/04/2022 19:20, J. Gareth Moreton via fpc-devel wrote:
I recently made a merge request that initally just fixed the incorrect
memory alignment for __m128 and similar types, but doing so revealed a
whole plethora of other bugs. First, when I fixed it, __m128 etc were
no longer recognised a
Pascal simply is a strongly typed language. Vector intrinsics are no
reason to weaken this. Thus you need to declare operator overloads that
hide the nitty, gritty details of assigning a TVector4 to a __m128, e.g.:
type
TVector4 = packed record
X, Y, Z, W: Single;
class operator := (c
Am 06.04.2022 um 20:32 schrieb J. Gareth Moreton via fpc-devel:
Another problem... I've tried to declare an ADDPD intrinsic as follows:
function x86_addpd(r0, r1: __m128d): __m128d; [INTERNPROC:
fpc_in_x86_addpd];
I thought using __m128d instead of __m128 was fairly logical since
ADDPD works
Another problem... I've tried to declare an ADDPD intrinsic as follows:
function x86_addpd(r0, r1: __m128d): __m128d; [INTERNPROC:
fpc_in_x86_addpd];
I thought using __m128d instead of __m128 was fairly logical since ADDPD
works with Doubles, not Singles, but this can cause problems. For
ex
Hi everyone,
I recently made a merge request that initally just fixed the incorrect
memory alignment for __m128 and similar types, but doing so revealed a
whole plethora of other bugs. First, when I fixed it, __m128 etc were
no longer recognised as a valid SIMD or aggregate type due to the wr
