Den 13-05-2011 19:54, greim skrev:
next week, Friday, 27th May 2011 there will be the Oberon day at the
ETH in Zürich
Also Niklaus Wirth is speaking so i guess its also interesting here in
the freePascal group.
Do you know if the talks there will be recorded? Could be nice :)
__
Hi,
next week, Friday, 27th May 2011 there will be the Oberon day at the ETH
in Zürich
Also Niklaus Wirth is speaking so i guess its also interesting here in
the freePascal group.
More info at:
http://www.oberonday2011.ethz.ch/
I guess i will attend.
Regards
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Markus
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 11:23 AM, Jonas Maebe wrote:
>
> On 13 May 2011, at 16:08, Marcos Douglas wrote:
>
>> So, not to use the option -O in i386?
>> When I compile FPC sources, on Win32 XP SP3, using make, the option is
>> used.
>
> It is used because in general it results in faster code. This i
2011/5/13 Vincent Snijders :
> Did you try one of the -Cf options to enable MMX on i386?
I was wrong, sorry. The instruction in question is "cvtsi2sd", which
is SSE2 not MMX. Maybe on x86_64 SSE2 is default.
Indeed if I add -CfSSE2 than those instructions are generated for
i386, at least for vari
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Vincent Snijders
wrote:
> 2011/5/13 Marcos Douglas :
>> So, not to use the option -O in i386?
>> When I compile FPC sources, on Win32 XP SP3, using make, the option is used.
>>
>> I'm confusing now...
>
> Did you try one of the -Cf options to enable MMX on i386?
On 13 May 2011, at 16:08, Marcos Douglas wrote:
So, not to use the option -O in i386?
When I compile FPC sources, on Win32 XP SP3, using make, the option
is used.
It is used because in general it results in faster code. This is one
particular example where it doesn't. That does not mean t
2011/5/13 Marcos Douglas :
> So, not to use the option -O in i386?
> When I compile FPC sources, on Win32 XP SP3, using make, the option is used.
>
> I'm confusing now...
Did you try one of the -Cf options to enable MMX on i386?
Vincent
___
fpc-pascal m
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 9:54 AM, cobines wrote:
> 2011/5/13 Ben :
>> On 12/05/2011 20:54, cobines wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm running it on Windows XP i386, compiled with FPC 2.5.1 17430.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I tried this on my system which runs 64-bit Linux with FPC 2.4.3 (64-bit).
>>
>> Using -O, -O2 or -O3 comm
Yesterday I posted an Grammar for a small macro preprocessor with
use of parameters to the developer mailing list. It shows up that is
difficult to work out that it would be useful, to have one.
The question is:
Is there a need or use for a small but full fledged macro
processor?
2011/5/13 Ben :
> On 12/05/2011 20:54, cobines wrote:
>>
>> I'm running it on Windows XP i386, compiled with FPC 2.5.1 17430.
>>
>
>
> I tried this on my system which runs 64-bit Linux with FPC 2.4.3 (64-bit).
>
> Using -O, -O2 or -O3 command line parameters. In each case, the
> generated executabl
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Marcos Douglas wrote:
>
> I did this test.
> My env is FPC 2.4.3 (/fixes_2_4)
>
> Result:
> -O = run in 891 ms
> -O1 = run in 875 ms
> -O2 = run in 1656 ms
> -O3 = run in 1625 ms
>
> And now?
Ah, sorry, I use WinXP SP3.
Marcos Douglas
__
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 3:54 PM, cobines wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I have written the following program:
>
> program a;
> {$mode objfpc}
> uses
> SysUtils;
> var
> i: integer;
> vd: double;
> t: TDateTime;
> max: int64;// = 1;
> begin
> t := Now;
> max := 1;
> for i := 0 to max d
On 13/05/2011 00:07, Martin wrote:
On 12/05/2011 23:49, Justin Smyth wrote:
Since upgrading to the lazarus 0.9.31 v30288 x64 ( and win32) i've
noticed the debugging is painfully slow , what use to take only a few
seconds under 0.9.28 now seems to take 20 to 30 seconds
20 to 30 sec, instead of a
On 12/05/2011 20:54, cobines wrote:
>
> I'm running it on Windows XP i386, compiled with FPC 2.5.1 17430.
>
I tried this on my system which runs 64-bit Linux with FPC 2.4.3 (64-bit).
Using -O, -O2 or -O3 command line parameters. In each case, the
generated executable runs exactly the same. The
14 matches
Mail list logo
