On 27 May 2006, at 11:01, Bisma Jayadi wrote:
I agree with Michael. And I think the line is clearly drawn. The
FPC (and more importantly the language syntax itself) design
goal, as I understand it, is to be, as much as possible, platform
and architecture independent and
I believe the bi
On 27 May 2006, at 21:54, L505 wrote:
Note that the setlength will generate exactly the same code as the
'last3[0]:=chr(3);' statement, so it's better to keep the setlength
(in case the string would ever become an ansistring, or just for
readability)
I didn't think the compiler would let you
Jonas Maebe wrote:
>
> On 27 May 2006, at 11:01, Bisma Jayadi wrote:
>
>>> I agree with Michael. And I think the line is clearly drawn. The FPC
>>> (and more importantly the language syntax itself) design goal, as I
>>> understand it, is to be, as much as possible, platform and
>>> architecture
On 28 May 2006, at 15:45, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
It is possible to implement a peephole optimization to change the
shift/or into the native variant of rol/ror if it exists.
The code currently generated is rather lengthy.
Of course, but it's going to be a pretty consistent pattern which can
On 28 May 2006, at 15:51, Jonas Maebe wrote:
But it can be done on ppc with two rlw* instructions which is also
ok,
no?
I think it needs three: to to rotate left/right, one to insert the
overflow at the end/start, and one to mask the overfow at the end/
start.
No, two is actually indee
