Hello,
How can one declare a constant of type qword with the INTEL assembler?
I am using FPC 2.2.0 and the mnemonic "dq" stops the compilation with
the message "Error: Unrecognized opcode DQ".
Thanks,
mm
http://www.ellipsa.net/
__
at's what I was afraid of. Thanks anyway.
So the simplest solution is to use the ATT (GAS?) assembler.
mm
http://www.ellipsa.net/
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Tomas Hajny a écrit :
On Thu, June 5, 2008 15:29, mm wrote:
Jonas Maebe a écrit :
How can one declare a constant of type qword with the INTEL assembler?
I am using FPC 2.2.0 and the mnemonic "dq" stops the compilation with
the message "Error: Unrecognized opcode DQ".
Tomas Hajny a écrit :
On Fri, June 6, 2008 17:19, mm wrote:
I thought to use hexadecimal code to replace the mnemonic "dq" itself
but 1) I don't know its code and 2) I am not even sure it would work.
There's no hexadecimal code for 'dq' (or any other d?) - t
do so) rather than
to let the compiler set checks everywhere.
mm
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
IntFrame;
etc.
there would not be much places where I could set {$R+} without having
to reset {$R-} almost immediately.
mm
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
B := ;
C := 1112;
D := 311;
A := (B - C) div D;
You will get two different values for A.
With 2.0.4, you compute ((B - C) mod 2^32) div D; with 2.1.4, you
compute (B - C) div D where (B - C) is a 64-bit signed parameter. These
are two different operations.
mm
_
4-bit
platforms and fpc was
also not always compatible with delphi.
I understand that your work is not easy, there is no good solution.
Either you follow Borland, i.e., you go on with the current mess, or you
try to rationalize things but, in this case, you can no more
Jonas Maebe a écrit :
On 15 Aug 2007, at 03:51, mm wrote:
To J.M.
---
You said "To be compatible with Delphi". With its current behaviour,
FPC 2.1.4 is not compatible with Delphi (and no more with FPC 2.0.4).
It is at least more compatible with Delphi than 2.1.4
Wh
t;.
When it is false, FPC behaves like Delphi.
mm
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
parameters [...]
What do you mean with "evaluation order of parameters"?
mm
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
at
http://home.netsurf.de/wolfgang.ehrhardt/misc_en.html#mpint
And there are others.
mm
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
store Pi in an infinite memory? :-)
mm
http://www.ellipsa.net/
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Germán Pablo Gentile - PetroBox a écrit :
El mar, 30-10-2007 a las 02:28 +0100, mm escribió:
Joao Morais a écrit :
Daniël Mantione wrote:
And, as said before, no datastructure is adequate for storing a
mathematical real number. Not even if you have infinite memory.
Nope. If infinite memory
write embedded
assembler routines. With FPC, the register convention is not the same
with embedded routines than with ordinary ones (at least for x86
processors, for the others I don't know).
mm
http://www.ellipsa.net/
___
fpc-pascal mai
with a "goto", this is sufficient to
justify its use.
mm
http://www.ellipsa.net/
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
The Paldo one (Developper Edition, may 18, 2007) works.
http://www.paldo.org/index-section-packages-page-installercd.html
I hope they will quickly update their files with Lazarus 0.9.24.
mm
http://www.ellipsa.net/
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-
aphically correct
than "f(x)"? ;-)
mm
--
http://www.ellipsa.net
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
nothing? No. They have to read all the code, to search for the "end"
that closes the "begin" in order to get sure there are no instructions
after this "end". In such a case, with the "Exit" instruction the
procedure is much easier to read.
mm
http://www.el
Vinzent Hoefler a écrit :
On Thursday 17 April 2008 17:53, mm wrote:
Rodrigo Palhano a écrit :
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 19:39:37 -0300, Zaher Dirkey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I use GO TO when teaching pascal, but after all i ask them to not
use it, it
just a bridge to learning the lo
AnObject.Free;
end;
Now Exit leave the procedure without freeing "AnObject".
We need a new Exit keyword to jump to Finally section (I do not think
Abort is useful here).
But AnObject is freed. If ever Exit had the behaviour you describe, we
would have a big problem.
mm
http://www.e
uld help you to see
how this program catches the exceptions.
mm
--
http://www.ellipsa.net/
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Mem and Move
is not really slower than the current behaviour of ReAllocMem
when the memory size increases. And, this way, I am sure (well,
almost) that the content of the memory area I want to increase
won't be destroyed.
mm
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-
"IFactorial(N,1)". Now what if, before
calling IFactorial, it is necessary to estimate the size of
!1 in order to oversize N? Yes, you lovely archive the
library in the trush and you search for an other one :-)
mm
___
fpc-pascal maillist -
24 matches
Mail list logo
