> On May 21, 2017, at 2:34 AM, Jonas Maebe wrote:
> The Pascal test program that was benchmarked here contains a number of
> bugs/wrong translations from the C code (some stem from the original version,
> another one was added):
Thanks for looking this over. I’m personally a little worried whe
On 20.05.2017 21:34, Jonas Maebe wrote:
> There's at least one minor twist of the classic "C compiler evaluates
> constant stuff at compile time":
> 1) oy and oz are constant. The "floor" function is a standard C library
> function, and hence C compilers know what it does and can evaluate it at
> c
Am 20.05.2017 um 21:34 schrieb Jonas Maebe:
> Also in summary, very little was learned from this. We have known for a long
> time that FPC needs SSA
> for better code generation for loops (and Florian has been working on it for
> a long time too).
Actually, this is not completely true :) What FP
On 19/05/17 02:54, Ryan Joseph wrote:
On May 18, 2017, at 10:40 PM, Jon Foster wrote:
62.44 1.33 1.33 fpc_frac_real
26.76 1.90 0.57 MATH_$$_FLOOR$EXTENDED$$LONGINT
10.33 2.12 0.22 FPC_DIV_INT64
Thanks for profil
On 20/05/17 12:30, Bart wrote:
On 5/20/17, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
According to the Programmer's Guide 1.3.41, {$EXTENDEDSYNTAX OFF} has> the
effect of permitting the result of a function to be ignored.
Isn't that just the other way around?
"Extended syntax allows you to drop the result of a
On 05/19/2017 06:13 PM, Jon Foster wrote:
On 05/19/2017 04:11 AM, Nikolay Nikolov wrote:
On 05/19/2017 03:54 AM, Ryan Joseph wrote:
On May 18, 2017, at 10:40 PM, Jon Foster
wrote:
62.44 1.33 1.33 fpc_frac_real
26.76 1.90 0.57 MATH_$$_FLOOR$EXTENDED$$LONGINT
10.33
On 5/20/17, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
> According to the Programmer's Guide 1.3.41, {$EXTENDEDSYNTAX OFF} has
> the effect of permitting the result of a function to be ignored.
Isn't that just the other way around?
"Extended syntax allows you to drop the result of a function. This
means that you
