On 06/01/13 12:04, Bart wrote:
On 1/6/13, Florian Klämpfl wrote:
For the illeterate that I am, thich raises yet another dumb question:
64-bit CPU's don't have 64-bit registers?
Try with a compiler for a 64 bit compiler.
Okay, now I am feeling realy stupid and embarassed.
Shame on me.
Bart
_
On 1/6/13, Florian Klämpfl wrote:
>>> For the illeterate that I am, thich raises yet another dumb question:
>>> 64-bit CPU's don't have 64-bit registers?
>>
>> Try with a compiler for a 64 bit compiler.
Okay, now I am feeling realy stupid and embarassed.
Shame on me.
Bart
__
Am 06.01.2013 12:46, schrieb Florian Klämpfl:
> Am 06.01.2013 12:42, schrieb Bart:
>> On 1/6/13, Florian Klämpfl wrote:
>>
>>> Because operations like array accesses require that they fit into one
>>> register.
>>
>> OK
>> For the illeterate that I am, thich raises yet another dumb question:
>> 64
Am 06.01.2013 12:42, schrieb Bart:
> On 1/6/13, Florian Klämpfl wrote:
>
>> Because operations like array accesses require that they fit into one
>> register.
>
> OK
> For the illeterate that I am, thich raises yet another dumb question:
> 64-bit CPU's don't have 64-bit registers?
Try with a co
On 1/6/13, Florian Klämpfl wrote:
> Because operations like array accesses require that they fit into one
> register.
OK
For the illeterate that I am, thich raises yet another dumb question:
64-bit CPU's don't have 64-bit registers?
Bart
___
fpc-pasca
Am 06.01.2013 00:34, schrieb Bart:
> On 1/5/13, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
>
>> Because they don't fit in 32 bits.
>
> Which (to me) raises the question: why do "true ordinal" values have
> to fit in 32 bits?
Because operations like array accesses require that they fit into one
register.
_
On 1/5/13, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
> Because they don't fit in 32 bits.
Which (to me) raises the question: why do "true ordinal" values have
to fit in 32 bits?
Bart
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal
On Sat, 5 Jan 2013, Bart wrote:
Hi,
I tried using an Int64 as a loop variable in a for loop.
The compiler complained that it was not an ordinal type.
This struck me as odd.
The docs indeed say Int64 and Word are not true ordinal types, but
they seem to fit the definition given in the same do
