> writeln('Let''s combine a short string with a wordstring.. (press enter)');
> readln;
> sstring:= ', interesting world.';
> WordStrConcat(sstring, wordstr1); // no memory allocated
sorry, forgot to include the actual shortstring overloaded function - my copy
and paste
skills are getting
> IMHO this whole discussion is nonsense. For basic path related stuff,
> ansistring is good enough, and if findfirst/findnext are still limiting with
> the current memmgr (afaik we changed to Micha's one since those original
> tests).
>
> Moreover, if the weak point of ansistrings is the heap copy
On 20 May 2006, at 22:39, Marco van de Voort wrote:
- Can turning implict excepctions off in core parts improve ansistring
performance?
Implicit exceptions are already turned of for the entire compiler.
Jonas
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel
> On 20 May 06, at 11:43, L505 wrote:
> > > more useful than longstrings.
> >
> > Admitting that C-language style programming (*char) is more practical and
> > real world than
> > Pascal programming?
>
> ;-) Well, that depends. I certainly don't think
> that *char is more practical for string
On Sat, 20 May 2006, Tomas Hajny wrote:
> > > Regarding unit Dos - providing PChar versions of
> > > some routines might be of general use, probably
> > > more useful than longstrings.
> >
> > Admitting that C-language style programming (*char) is more practical and
> > real world than
> > Pas
On 20 May 06, at 11:43, L505 wrote:
> > .
> > .
> > > have tight custom units with no end user units like sysutils. One way to
> > > accomplish
> this,
> > > like I've already mentioned, is to use shortstring/longstring/array of
> > > string/ based
> Dos
> > > unit, using shortstrings where ne
> .
> .
> > have tight custom units with no end user units like sysutils. One way to
> > accomplish
this,
> > like I've already mentioned, is to use shortstring/longstring/array of
> > string/ based
Dos
> > unit, using shortstrings where necessary, arrays of strings where
> > necessary, and
ar
> Also, using some compiler trickery can be done to optimize usage of
> AnsiStrings so we can avoid use of PChars, but of course this will
> have to wait a bit.
Or programmer trickery - the fpc souce already contains lots of programmer
trickery around
ansistrings such as using uniquestring, setl
> Forgive me if I'm saying BS but it's been about 10 years since I
> programmed in TurboPascal (and used ShortStrings), but don't
> ShortStrings use the size they are declared with? And 255 is just
> default size (if no size is specified)?
The shortstring type does, but you can use a pointer to a
On 18 May 06, at 13:50, L505 wrote:
.
.
> have tight custom units with no end user units like sysutils. One way to
> accomplish this,
> like I've already mentioned, is to use shortstring/longstring/array of
> string/ based Dos
> unit, using shortstrings where necessary, arrays of strings where
On 5/19/06, Пётр Косаревский <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sorry, these two letters were accidentally sent personally.
To Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho:
> > probably Windows will become totally utf16 (not really unicode, but
> > at least utf16) really soon (at least in newer versions in a way
> > in
Op Fri, 19 May 2006, schreef Flávio Etrusco:
> Forgive me if I'm saying BS but it's been about 10 years since I
> programmed in TurboPascal (and used ShortStrings), but don't
> ShortStrings use the size they are declared with? And 255 is just
> default size (if no size is specified)?
Of course.
Op Fri, 19 May 2006, schreef Flávio Etrusco:
> > Free Pascal is Delphi compatible.
>
> I know that FPC aims to be Delphi-compatible, but it's not always the
> case, as e.g. the WideStrings were reference-counted until a couple of
> months ago.
> So you are saying that in this is specific case F
On 5/19/06, Daniël Mantione <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Op Thu, 18 May 2006, schreef Flávio Etrusco:
> > L> Dynamic arrays can be very handy and I never knew anyone who avoids
> > L> them. Of course if your array has fixed length there's no reason
> > L> to use a dynamic array either.
> > L> Fo
On 5/19/06, Daniël Mantione <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Op Fri, 19 May 2006, schreef Micha Nelissen:
> On Fri, 19 May 2006 18:29:29 +0100
> Peter Vreman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > There are already some complains about the memory usage. Increasing the
> > string size adds a lot more overh
Op Fri, 19 May 2006, schreef Micha Nelissen:
> On Fri, 19 May 2006 18:29:29 +0100
> Peter Vreman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > There are already some complains about the memory usage. Increasing the
> > string size adds a lot more overhead. Especially for all the small labels
> > like .L1
On Fri, 19 May 2006 18:29:29 +0100
Peter Vreman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There are already some complains about the memory usage. Increasing the
> string size adds a lot more overhead. Especially for all the small labels
> like .L1 etc. Already using longstrings will add 3 bytes for the leng
> That's one solution, that's not the only solution.
Very right. It is a trade-off. Do you fix the shortstring issue
and continue to get their benefits, or do you abandon them,
rewrite large parts of the compiler and pay the performance/memory
usage price?
There are already some complains abo
I think you guys may be living in a 255 cave, simply because that's all we
have to deal
with at this time. Some say that ansistrings might be the way to go using
sysutils -
personally I think sysutils has no place in the compiler core and the
compiler core should
have tight custom units with
Also assembler symbols/labels should get extended to strings > 255 in the
future because there is already a bug open in which it is demonstrated
that it is possible to create too long labels which makes a program
uncompilable.
Or some scheme derived which makes sure that labels never get lar
Sorry, these two letters were accidentally sent personally.
To Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho:
> > probably Windows will become totally utf16 (not really unicode, but
> > at least utf16) really soon (at least in newer versions in a way
> > incompatible with current ones).
>
> A small correction, ut
Op Thu, 18 May 2006, schreef Flávio Etrusco:
> > L> Dynamic arrays can be very handy and I never knew anyone who avoids
> > L> them. Of course if your array has fixed length there's no reason
> > L> to use a dynamic array either.
> > L> Fortunately it's no very often that one falls in Borland's
On 5/18/06, Пётр Косаревский с mail.ru <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
L> Can someone tell me how slow/fast a dynamic array is compared to a fixed
one? Say you used
L> a dynamic array of chars or dynamic array of shortstrings - would the
dynamic array be
L> slow on a general basis? Maybe we will hav
But it's only a matter of time:
probably Windows will become totally utf16 (not really unicode, but
at least utf16) really soon (at least in newer versions in a way
incompatible with current ones).
A small correction, utf16 is a type of unicode.
thanks,
--
Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho
__
L> Can someone tell me how slow/fast a dynamic array is compared to a fixed
one? Say you used
L> a dynamic array of chars or dynamic array of shortstrings - would the
dynamic array be
L> slow on a general basis? Maybe we will have to resort to benchmarks using
the cpu timer.
L> And then there is
Op Thu, 18 May 2006, schreef L505:
> That's one solution, that's not the only solution.
Very right. It is a trade-off. Do you fix the shortstring issue
and continue to get their benefits, or do you abandon them,
rewrite large parts of the compiler and pay the performance/memory
usage price?
> > Also assembler symbols/labels should get extended to strings > 255 in the
> > future because there is already a bug open in which it is demonstrated that
> > it
> > is possible to create too long labels which makes a program uncompilable.
> > Or some scheme derived which makes sure that labels
Op Thu, 18 May 2006, schreef Thomas Schatzl:
> Also assembler symbols/labels should get extended to strings > 255 in the
> future because there is already a bug open in which it is demonstrated that it
> is possible to create too long labels which makes a program uncompilable.
> Or some scheme d
Hello,
From: Jonas Maebe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 17 mei 2006, at 20:19, L505 wrote:
We wouldn't have to use sysutils yet.. we could make a custom Dos unit
which used "longstrings" instead of short strings, but keep the old
Dos unit for compatibility..
This still means that someone has to fini
29 matches
Mail list logo
