ϸòð Êîñàðåâñêèé ñ mail.ru wrote:
> FK> Jonas Maebe wrote:
>>> On 24 mei 2006, at 17:30, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
>>>
Not really because it is simply a tar ball of several .tar.gz. Because
gzip is spread wider, we use this instead of bzip2/7zip.
>>> Isn't bzip2 available more or less every
Tomas Hajny wrote:
> On 25 May 06, at 0:10, ϸňđ Ęîńŕđĺâńęčé ń mail.ru wrote:
>
First parameter is in eax, second in edx (third one is ecx)
>> TH> Yes, of course, sorry for confusion... :-( Anyway, loading of the first
>> TH> parameter can be still skipped (and the stack frame is probably not
On Thu, 25 May 2006, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
> Tomas Hajny wrote:
> > On 25 May 06, at 0:10, ϸňđ Ęîńŕđĺâńęčé ń mail.ru wrote:
> >
> First parameter is in eax, second in edx (third one is ecx)
> >> TH> Yes, of course, sorry for confusion... :-( Anyway, loading of the first
> >> TH> paramet
Jeff Pohlmeyer wrote:
>> Because gzip is spread wider, we use this instead of bzip2/7zip.
>
> I think the size saved by compressing FPC with bz2 would be much
> greater than the size of downloading and installing a bzip2 extractor.
Yes, but it requires extra work :)
__
hi,does fpc support unit names with more than one dot or is planned?in delphi 7 you can compile this:// unit main.dprprogram main;uses test.sec;begin test.sec.doit;end.
// unit test.sec.pasunit test.sec;interfaceprocedure doit;implementationprocedure doit;begin writeln('anda');end;end.thanks,mar
Florian Klaempfl wrote:
> Tomas Hajny wrote:
>> On 25 May 06, at 0:10, ϸňđ Ęîńŕđĺâńęčé ń mail.ru wrote:
>>
> First parameter is in eax, second in edx (third one is ecx)
>>> TH> Yes, of course, sorry for confusion... :-( Anyway, loading of the
>>> first
>>> TH> parameter can be still skipped (a
mariano podesta wrote:
> hi,
> does fpc support unit names with more than one dot or is planned?
>
> in delphi 7 you can compile this:
This looks to me like a delphi bug. A unit must be a valid pascal
identifier. Or is there any use in supporting this?
>
> // unit main.dpr
> program main;
>
>
Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
>
> On Thu, 25 May 2006, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
>
>> Tomas Hajny wrote:
>>> On 25 May 06, at 0:10, ϸňđ Ęîńŕđĺâńęčé ń mail.ru wrote:
>>>
>> First parameter is in eax, second in edx (third one is ecx)
TH> Yes, of course, sorry for confusion... :-( Anyway, loadi
> > 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
On Wed, 24 May 2006 10:42:30 -0300
"mariano podesta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> hi,
> does fpc support unit names with more than one dot or is planned?
>
> begin
> test.sec.doit;
> end.
Don't you think this is very confusing ?
Micha
___
fpc-pascal
On 5/25/06, Florian Klaempfl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
mariano podesta wrote:
> hi,
> does fpc support unit names with more than one dot or is planned?
>
> in delphi 7 you can compile this:
This looks to me like a delphi bug. A unit must be a valid pascal
identifier. Or is there any use in supp
> Jeff Pohlmeyer wrote:
> >> Because gzip is spread wider, we use this instead of bzip2/7zip.
> >
> > I think the size saved by compressing FPC with bz2 would be much
> > greater than the size of downloading and installing a bzip2 extractor.
>
> Yes, but it requires extra work :)
Just a side rem
> >
> > 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)?
>
> - they must be available for all cpu platforms, so we need at least a
> generic implementation
> - for an efficient implementation, this need
> On 5/25/06, Florian Klaempfl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > mariano podesta wrote:
> > > hi,
> > > does fpc support unit names with more than one dot or is planned?
> > >
> > > in delphi 7 you can compile this:
> >
> > This looks to me like a delphi bug. A unit must be a valid pascal
> > identifi
Marco van de Voort wrote:
>>> 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)?
>> - they must be available for all cpu platforms, so we need at least a
>> generic implementation
>> - for an efficient impl
> 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
On Thu, 25 May 2006, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
> Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 25 May 2006, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
> >
> >> Tomas Hajny wrote:
> >>> On 25 May 06, at 0:10, ϸňđ Ęîńŕđĺâńęčé ń mail.ru wrote:
> >>>
> >> First parameter is in eax, second in edx (third one is ecx)
>
Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
>
> On Thu, 25 May 2006, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
>
>> Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
>>> On Thu, 25 May 2006, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
>>>
Tomas Hajny wrote:
> On 25 May 06, at 0:10, ϸňđ Ęîńŕđĺâńęčé ń mail.ru wrote:
>
First parameter is in eax, second
> 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
On 25/05/06, Florian Klaempfl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jeff Pohlmeyer wrote:
>> Because gzip is spread wider, we use this instead of bzip2/7zip.
>
> I think the size saved by compressing FPC with bz2 would be much
> greater than the size of downloading and installing a bzip2 extractor.
Yes, bu
Adrian Maier wrote:
> On 25/05/06, Florian Klaempfl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Jeff Pohlmeyer wrote:
>> >> Because gzip is spread wider, we use this instead of bzip2/7zip.
>> >
>> > I think the size saved by compressing FPC with bz2 would be much
>> > greater than the size of downloading and ins
Florian Klaempfl wrote:
> Adrian Maier wrote:
>> On 25/05/06, Florian Klaempfl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Jeff Pohlmeyer wrote:
>>> >> Because gzip is spread wider, we use this instead of bzip2/7zip.
>>> >
>>> > I think the size saved by compressing FPC with bz2 would be much
>>> > greater than
On 25 May 2006, at 12:43, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
What do you think about having two archives, to make everyone
happy :
one compressed with gzip ( for those concerned about compatibility)
and one compressed with bzip2 (for those concerned about the size) ?
Extra work for us :) We're alrea
Jonas Maebe wrote:
>
> On 25 May 2006, at 12:43, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
>
>>> What do you think about having two archives, to make everyone happy :
>>> one compressed with gzip ( for those concerned about compatibility)
>>> and one compressed with bzip2 (for those concerned about the size) ?
>
On 5/25/06, Florian Klaempfl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I tend also to agree. Does anybody know something newer than Woody
coming without bzip2 by default?
DamnSmallLinux
--
Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.fre
> bzip2 has similar compression rates (except maybe for multimedia
> files, which isn't the case) and 7zip/LZMA usually compresses better
> than RAR.
> 7zip isn't installed by default in any distro AFAIK, but at least it
> open source.
> RAR would be my last option...
I tried to benchmark a little
26 matches
Mail list logo
