On 16.04.2011 15:55, Florian Klämpfl wrote:
Am 16.04.2011 15:27, schrieb Florian Klämpfl:
Am 15.04.2011 11:39, schrieb Sven Barth:
Am 14.04.2011 22:29, schrieb Florian Klämpfl:
Am 13.04.2011 12:11, schrieb Sven Barth:
Am 12.04.2011 21:41, schrieb Sven Barth:
The latter change is not yet comm
Am 16.04.2011 15:27, schrieb Florian Klämpfl:
> Am 15.04.2011 11:39, schrieb Sven Barth:
>> Am 14.04.2011 22:29, schrieb Florian Klämpfl:
>>> Am 13.04.2011 12:11, schrieb Sven Barth:
Am 12.04.2011 21:41, schrieb Sven Barth:
> The latter change is not yet commited (I will do that tomorrow),
Am 15.04.2011 11:39, schrieb Sven Barth:
> Am 14.04.2011 22:29, schrieb Florian Klämpfl:
>> Am 13.04.2011 12:11, schrieb Sven Barth:
>>> Am 12.04.2011 21:41, schrieb Sven Barth:
The latter change is not yet commited (I will do that tomorrow), but
the
implementation of the flag and th
Am 14.04.2011 22:29, schrieb Florian Klämpfl:
Am 13.04.2011 12:11, schrieb Sven Barth:
Am 12.04.2011 21:41, schrieb Sven Barth:
The latter change is not yet commited (I will do that tomorrow), but the
implementation of the flag and the removing of "current_syssym" are
already commited.
Done.
Am 13.04.2011 12:11, schrieb Sven Barth:
> Am 12.04.2011 21:41, schrieb Sven Barth:
>> The latter change is not yet commited (I will do that tomorrow), but the
>> implementation of the flag and the removing of "current_syssym" are
>> already commited.
>
> Done.
Looks good to me now. So imo it can
Am 12.04.2011 21:41, schrieb Sven Barth:
The latter change is not yet commited (I will do that tomorrow), but the
implementation of the flag and the removing of "current_syssym" are
already commited.
Done.
Regards,
Sven
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc
On 11.04.2011 01:33, Jonas Maebe wrote:
On 10 Apr 2011, at 21:49, Florian Klämpfl wrote:
Am 08.04.2011 09:07, schrieb Jonas Maebe:
On 08 Apr 2011, at 08:58, Sven Barth wrote:
Maybe you can do it in pass_1 instead, and add another boolean field
to ttypenode similar to allowed (such as classh
On 10 Apr 2011, at 21:49, Florian Klämpfl wrote:
> Am 08.04.2011 09:07, schrieb Jonas Maebe:
>>
>> On 08 Apr 2011, at 08:58, Sven Barth wrote:
>>
>> Maybe you can do it in pass_1 instead, and add another boolean field
>> to ttypenode similar to allowed (such as classhelper_allowed). Then
>> you
On 10.04.2011 21:49, Florian Klämpfl wrote:
Am 08.04.2011 09:07, schrieb Jonas Maebe:
On 08 Apr 2011, at 08:58, Sven Barth wrote:
You basically suggest to extend ttypenode.typecheck_pass to check
for a class helper, correct? If so then the problem is that I can't
check whether I'm inside one
Am 08.04.2011 09:07, schrieb Jonas Maebe:
>
> On 08 Apr 2011, at 08:58, Sven Barth wrote:
>
>> You basically suggest to extend ttypenode.typecheck_pass to check
>> for a class helper, correct? If so then the problem is that I can't
>> check whether I'm inside one of the three allowed syssyms as n
On 08 Apr 2011, at 08:58, Sven Barth wrote:
> You basically suggest to extend ttypenode.typecheck_pass to check for a class
> helper, correct? If so then the problem is that I can't check whether I'm
> inside one of the three allowed syssyms as no node is generated for them
> (yet). Also typec
Am 06.04.2011 13:35, schrieb Florian Klaempfl:
Am 05.04.2011 17:34, schrieb Sven Barth:
Am 05.04.2011 17:06, schrieb Florian Klaempfl:
Am 05.04.2011 04:27, schrieb Paul Ishenin:
I think your branch should be reviewed either by Florian
I did a quick review and found nothing important, only a
On 06.04.2011 14:24, Sven Barth wrote:
Am 06.04.2011 13:35, schrieb Florian Klaempfl:
Am 05.04.2011 17:34, schrieb Sven Barth:
Am 05.04.2011 17:06, schrieb Florian Klaempfl:
Am 05.04.2011 04:27, schrieb Paul Ishenin:
I think your branch should be reviewed either by Florian
I did a quick re
Am 06.04.2011 13:35, schrieb Florian Klaempfl:
Am 05.04.2011 17:34, schrieb Sven Barth:
Am 05.04.2011 17:06, schrieb Florian Klaempfl:
Am 05.04.2011 04:27, schrieb Paul Ishenin:
I think your branch should be reviewed either by Florian
I did a quick review and found nothing important, only a
Am 05.04.2011 17:34, schrieb Sven Barth:
> Am 05.04.2011 17:06, schrieb Florian Klaempfl:
>> Am 05.04.2011 04:27, schrieb Paul Ishenin:
>>>
>>> I think your branch should be reviewed either by Florian
>>
>> I did a quick review and found nothing important, only a few remarks:
>> - current_syssym: i
Am 05.04.2011 20:20, schrieb Sven Barth:
> On 05.04.2011 17:34, Sven Barth wrote:
>>> - Is ibsymtableoptions needed? Couldn't be the value just be written to
>>> the ppu without a new entry?
>>
>> It didn't work the first time I added that, but it might be because of
>> other errors I had at that t
06.04.2011 2:20, Sven Barth пишет:
On 05.04.2011 17:34, Sven Barth wrote:
- Is ibsymtableoptions needed? Couldn't be the value just be written to
the ppu without a new entry?
It didn't work the first time I added that, but it might be because of
other errors I had at that time. I'll recheck th
On 05.04.2011 17:34, Sven Barth wrote:
- Is ibsymtableoptions needed? Couldn't be the value just be written to
the ppu without a new entry?
It didn't work the first time I added that, but it might be because of
other errors I had at that time. I'll recheck that to be sure.
I now remember why
Am 05.04.2011 17:06, schrieb Florian Klaempfl:
Am 05.04.2011 04:27, schrieb Paul Ishenin:
I think your branch should be reviewed either by Florian
I did a quick review and found nothing important, only a few remarks:
- current_syssym: is it really needed? Can't the type checking be done
durin
Am 05.04.2011 04:27, schrieb Paul Ishenin:
>
> I think your branch should be reviewed either by Florian
I did a quick review and found nothing important, only a few remarks:
- current_syssym: is it really needed? Can't the type checking be done
during the type check pass? If it's needed, it shou
Am 05.04.2011 11:42, schrieb dhkblas...@zeelandnet.nl:
On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 11:17:48 +0200, Sven Barth
wrote:
Am 05.04.2011 04:27, schrieb Paul Ishenin:
05.04.2011 3:51, Sven Barth wrote:
Both "class helpers" and "record helpers" are implemented and work as
Delphi compatible as reasonably pos
On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 11:17:48 +0200, Sven Barth
wrote:
Am 05.04.2011 04:27, schrieb Paul Ishenin:
05.04.2011 3:51, Sven Barth wrote:
Both "class helpers" and "record helpers" are implemented and work
as
Delphi compatible as reasonably possible.
Congratulations.
Thank you.
Just from my
Am 05.04.2011 11:17, schrieb Sven Barth:
Some notes regarding the tests:
* three record helper tests (trhlp*) fail, because nested types are not
supported by (advanced) records (two should fail nevertheless, because
they try to access (strict) private helpers, the third should succeed)
Nested t
Am 05.04.2011 04:27, schrieb Paul Ishenin:
05.04.2011 3:51, Sven Barth wrote:
Both "class helpers" and "record helpers" are implemented and work as
Delphi compatible as reasonably possible.
Congratulations.
Thank you.
Some notes regarding the tests:
* three record helper tests (trhlp*) f
Am 05.04.2011 10:19, schrieb Paul Ishenin:
05.04.2011 16:11, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
Yes, but but they need to be reviewed as well, no?
If they all were tested with delphi xe then no.
I developed them in Delphi XE first before I copied them into my branch.
(the only problem with my Starter
05.04.2011 16:11, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
Yes, but but they need to be reviewed as well, no?
If they all were tested with delphi xe then no.
Best regards,
Paul Ishenin
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepasca
Am 05.04.2011 10:09, schrieb Paul Ishenin:
> 05.04.2011 14:26, Florian Klaempfl пишет:
>> Am 05.04.2011 04:27, schrieb Paul Ishenin:
>>> We probably can extend these tricks for other types and may be speedup
>>> the compiler.
>>>
>>> I think your branch should be reviewed either by Florian or by Jo
05.04.2011 14:26, Florian Klaempfl пишет:
Am 05.04.2011 04:27, schrieb Paul Ishenin:
We probably can extend these tricks for other types and may be speedup
the compiler.
I think your branch should be reviewed either by Florian or by Jonas
before the merge.
I can review the coding style etc. b
Am 05.04.2011 04:27, schrieb Paul Ishenin:
> We probably can extend these tricks for other types and may be speedup
> the compiler.
>
> I think your branch should be reviewed either by Florian or by Jonas
> before the merge.
I can review the coding style etc. but not if the semantics or syntax of
05.04.2011 3:51, Sven Barth wrote:
Both "class helpers" and "record helpers" are implemented and work as
Delphi compatible as reasonably possible.
Congratulations.
Some notes regarding the tests:
* three record helper tests (trhlp*) fail, because nested types are not
supported by (advanced)
Hello together!
Today I have run the final tests on the helper branch and I'm satisfied
with their results, thus I'd like you to review and hopefully merge my
work. The wiki page I have started will be updated as soon as I find the
time.
Both "class helpers" and "record helpers" are implemen
31 matches
Mail list logo
