Hi everyone,
I've decided to take on https://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=37785 -
I've noticed that the compiler isn't too good at working out the sizes
of SSE and AVX instructions. If you look at
Tx86Instruction.SetInstructionOpsize in compiler/x86/rax86.pas, it
checks for individual pro
Hi,
look at the function "MemRefInfo(aAsmop: TAsmOp)" in "compiler/x86/aasmcpu.pas".
Torsten
-Original-Nachricht-
Betreff: [fpc-devel] SSE/AVX instruction encodings
Datum: 2020-10-01T13:57:05+0200
Von: "J. Gareth Moreton via fpc-devel"
An: "FPC developers' list"
Hi everyone,
I've
Hi Torsten,
I've done that already actually, although only to grab the value of the
ExistsSSEAVX field. I'm currently testing a new nested function in
Tx86Instruction.SetInstructionOpsize:
function CheckSSEAVX: Boolean;
begin
Result := False;
if not MemRefInfo(opcode).Exis
Hi everyone,
This is an idea that sprung to mind while looking at fixing an unrelated
bug, and that's to do with nested functions.
In situations where a nested function has no parameters, is it feasible
and beneficial to programmatically merge it into the main procedure in
some circumstances
Hi everyone,
I have a small question with assembler size optimisation that maybe one
of you guys can give me a second opinion on:
If you are using the "test" instruction to test some of the lower bits
of an instruction, e.g. TEST RCX, $2, is there a penalty with calling
TEST CL, $2 instead?
On 10/1/20 8:17 PM, J. Gareth Moreton via fpc-devel wrote:
Hi everyone,
I have a small question with assembler size optimisation that maybe
one of you guys can give me a second opinion on:
If you are using the "test" instruction to test some of the lower bits
of an instruction, e.g. TEST RC
C:\Users\public\freepascal\laz\components\fpdebug\fpdbgdwarf.pas(265,15) Error:
(3058) There is no method in an ancestor class to be overridden:
"SetAsInteger(Int64);"
C:\Users\public\freepascal\laz\components\fpdebug\fpdbgdwarf.pas(275,15) Error:
(3058) There is no method in an ancestor class t
Sorry, wrong list.
Pascal
> Pascal Riekenberg via fpc-devel hat am
> 01.10.2020 22:17 geschrieben:
>
>
> C:\Users\public\freepascal\laz\components\fpdebug\fpdbgdwarf.pas(265,15)
> Error: (3058) There is no method in an ancestor class to be overridden:
> "SetAsInteger(Int64);"
>
I thought that might be the case - thanks Nikolay. And I meant to say
lower bits of a REGISTER, not an instruction!
Admittedly I'm cycle-counting and byte-counting again! I was looking
for ways to reduce 13 bytes of padding in one of my pure assembly
language routines and realised I could ma
> On Oct 1, 2020, at 10:37 AM, J. Gareth Moreton via fpc-devel
> wrote:
>
> In situations where a nested function has no parameters, is it feasible and
> beneficial to programmatically merge it into the main procedure
What do you mean by "merge"? Like inlining?
Regards,
Ryan Joseph
In a way, yes, but not quite the same, since multiple calls to the
nested function would still redirect to the same block of code rather
than being inlined at each call. I suppose more similar to the old
GOSUB; RETURN combination in old versions of Basic, and the nested
routine slotted either
Hi Gareth,
in my opinion it is not a good idea to introduce a new function to calculate
the operand size.
The risk of breaking existing code (fpc and user code) is very high.
I introduced the system with memrefinfo for sse and avx opcodes to protect the
existing user code. The basis of this c
On 01/10/2020 23:22, J. Gareth Moreton via fpc-devel wrote:
In a way, yes, but not quite the same, since multiple calls to the
nested function would still redirect to the same block of code rather
than being inlined at each call. I suppose more similar to the old
GOSUB; RETURN combination in o
On 10/1/20 11:36 PM, J. Gareth Moreton via fpc-devel wrote:
I thought that might be the case - thanks Nikolay. And I meant to say
lower bits of a REGISTER, not an instruction!
Admittedly I'm cycle-counting and byte-counting again! I was looking
for ways to reduce 13 bytes of padding in one
14 matches
Mail list logo
