> Well, if we're going in that direction anyway:
> Why not include all possible assembler instructions then ?
Because some of them are not designed for calculations. But ror/rol are.
> Let's be serious. You must draw the line somewhere.
> I think these instructions are so exotic, they are pollut
> But the problem with ROR/ROL is that any real use over shr/shl uses a hard
> to model carry flag?
Ugh, I don't understand well, but the talk is about rotating bits, no low level
features like CF are requested (it doesn't mean very much if you rotate by
several bits).
Who talked about CF? I di
> > Tomas Hajny wrote:
> > > I guess there is no problem in including it. The
> > > only questions from my point of view are:
> > >
> > > 1) Are they useful in general, so that it would
> > > make sense to include them either in FPC itself
> > > (as opposed to some standalone unit)?
Well, they
There is this page which might help some
http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/del-bits.htm
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
đŁÔŇ ëĎÓÁŇĹ×ÓËÉĘ wrote:
>> On 24 mei 2006, at 10:56, đŁÔŇ ëĎÓÁŇĹ×ÓËÉĘ wrote:
>> > Is there high level operator/(inline)function for rotating bits?
>> No.
>> > Am I supposed to implement rotating bits (like ror/rol in i386 asm)
>> > by inline assembler or some ugly workarounds (shifts and or-s)?
>>
> On 24 mei 2006, at 10:56, Пётр Косаревский wrote:
> > Is there high level operator/(inline)function for rotating bits?
> No.
> > Am I supposed to implement rotating bits (like ror/rol in i386 asm)
> > by inline assembler or some ugly workarounds (shifts and or-s)?
> Yes. I think there's already
