On 2016-01-20 23:11, Sven Barth wrote:
> You cam check this by compiling with -al and comparing the assembler code.
It seems using Sets produce slightly smaller assembler code (2
instructions less) for the example code I posted. Attached is a comparison.
I guess the other benefit is that using Se
Am 25.01.2016 12:36 schrieb "Graeme Geldenhuys" <
mailingli...@geldenhuys.co.uk>:
>
> On 2016-01-20 23:11, Sven Barth wrote:
> > You cam check this by compiling with -al and comparing the assembler
code.
>
> It seems using Sets produce slightly smaller assembler code (2
> instructions less) for the
On 2016-01-25 15:23, Sven Barth wrote:
> Did you test with different optimization settings?
No, I use -O- for the test. But I did think that optimization might
make a difference, but didn't actually test it.
> Anyway I agree that sets are easier to read ;)
Yup. I've decided to change my bitmas
Hi,
I was always under the impression that the examples included in the FPC
documentation should be compilable examples.
Looking at the following example code included with the GenEnumName()
documentation, it will not compile because TMyTestObject is undefined.
http://www.freepascal.org/docs-h
On Mon, 25 Jan 2016, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
Hi,
I was always under the impression that the examples included in the FPC
documentation should be compilable examples.
Looking at the following example code included with the GenEnumName()
documentation, it will not compile because TMyTestObjec
On 2016-01-25 16:32, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
> They should definitely be compilable.
OK, I found more. I'll send through a patch via Mantis.
Regards,
- Graeme -
My public PGP key: http://tinyurl.com/graeme-pgp
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pas
