Hi all,
It took a bit longer than expected, but I'm happy to inform you that the
Lazarus services are back online.
For those interested in why it took longer, I'll explain at the end of
the message.
Marc
On 24-12-2021 08:30, Marc Weustink wrote:
Hi,
On Monday 27 December 9.00 CET (8.00 GMT
On Tue, 28 Dec 2021 09:41:03 +0100
Marc Weustink via lazarus wrote:
>[...]
> To be continued...
Oh dear. Thanks for the all the work!
Mattias
--
___
lazarus mailing list
lazarus@lists.lazarus-ide.org
https://lists.lazarus-ide.org/listinfo/lazarus
On Tue, 28 Dec 2021, Marc Weustink via lazarus wrote:
Hi all,
It took a bit longer than expected, but I'm happy to inform you that the
Lazarus services are back online.
For those interested in why it took longer, I'll explain at the end of the
message.
[snip]
Meanwhile it was 24:00 an
On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 3:29 AM Noel Duffy via lazarus <
lazarus@lists.lazarus-ide.org> wrote:
> So it appears to me that an unsigned pointer type is required in
> UTFLengthFast.
>
Can you please create a patch for UTFLengthFast. You can upload it here or
create a merge request in GitLab or anyth
On 28/12/2021 11:52, Juha Manninen via lazarus wrote:
On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 3:29 AM Noel Duffy via lazarus
wrote:
So it appears to me that an unsigned pointer type is required in
UTFLengthFast.
Can you please create a patch for UTFLengthFast. You can upload it
here or create a mer
On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 11:52 AM Juha Manninen via lazarus
wrote:
> Can you please create a patch for UTFLengthFast. You can upload it here or
> create a merge request in GitLab or anything.
@Juha: can you please comment on my possible improvement using PopCnt
instead of a multiplication with O
On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 1:45 PM Bart via lazarus <
lazarus@lists.lazarus-ide.org> wrote:
> @Juha: can you please comment on my possible improvement using PopCnt
> instead of a multiplication with ONEMASK.
>
I confess I didn't remember what PopCnt does. I checked from the net.
FPC implements it as
On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 12:08 PM Martin Frb via lazarus
wrote:
> I would like to see the generates assembler on M1, if that is possible? (for
> code with optimization off, as well as code with whatever optimization was
> used so far)
@Noel:
Here's example code (standalone) you can use to tes
On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 1:09 PM Juha Manninen via lazarus
wrote:
> I confess I didn't remember what PopCnt does. I checked from the net.
> FPC implements it as internproc.
> function PopCnt(Const AValue : QWord): QWord;[internproc:fpc_in_popcnt_x];
> I guess it translates to one x86_64 instruct
On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 1:09 PM Juha Manninen via lazarus
wrote:
>> I will patch the function using unsigned types where applicable.
>> I will keep the loop variables unsigned though.
>
>
> Yes, thank you.
Done.
Should that be merged to fixes?
--
Bart
--
_
Op 12/28/2021 om 1:53 PM schreef Bart via lazarus:
I just tested PopCnt vs Multiplication on win32 and win64.
The version with PopCnt is appr. 3 times slower on both 32 and 64 bit!
You need an appropriate minimal CPU with -Cp
Try e.g. -Cpcoreavx for core 3000 series and higher
--
_
On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 2:46 PM Marco van de Voort via lazarus
wrote:
> You need an appropriate minimal CPU with -Cp
>
>
> Try e.g. -Cpcoreavx for core 3000 series and higher
Thanks for that.
Up to PENTIUMM: PopCnt slower
COREI : approximately equally fast
COREAVX PopCnt slightly faster
COREA
Am 28.12.2021 um 15:01 schrieb Bart via lazarus:
On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 2:46 PM Marco van de Voort via lazarus
wrote:
You need an appropriate minimal CPU with -Cp
Try e.g. -Cpcoreavx for core 3000 series and higher
Thanks for that.
Up to PENTIUMM: PopCnt slower
COREI : approximately eq
Op 12/28/2021 om 3:01 PM schreef Bart via lazarus:
-Cpcoreavx for core 3000 series and higher
Thanks for that.
Up to PENTIUMM: PopCnt slower
COREI : approximately equally fast
COREAVX PopCnt slightly faster
COREAVX2 PopCnt slightly faster
On what machine did you test? The settings if for t
On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 3:31 PM Florian Klämpfl via lazarus
wrote:
> For X86, check for the define CPUX86_HAS_POPCNT (compile time!).
Thanks.
--
Bart
--
___
lazarus mailing list
lazarus@lists.lazarus-ide.org
https://lists.lazarus-ide.org/listinfo/
On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 3:39 PM Marco van de Voort via lazarus
wrote:
> On what machine did you test? The settings if for the generated code,
> but the actual processor determines the effective speed.
I have a Intel i5 7th generation on my Win10-64 laptop from approx.
2017 (so, it's really old f
Am 28.12.2021 um 15:50 schrieb Bart via lazarus:
On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 3:39 PM Marco van de Voort via lazarus
wrote:
On what machine did you test? The settings if for the generated code,
but the actual processor determines the effective speed.
I have a Intel i5 7th generation on my Win10-6
On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 3:56 PM Florian Klämpfl via lazarus
wrote:
>
> Crash at run time with sigill. Popcnt was introduced with Nehalem, so >10
> years ago.
Thanks.
Any other CPU's support something like this?
--
Bart
--
___
lazarus mailing list
Hello,
Thanks to the magic of RTTI and Invoke(), creating a JSON-RPC server has
just become significantly easier !
Given an interface definition:
IMyOtherInterface = interface ['{4D52BEE3-F709-44AC-BD31-870CBFF44632}']
Function SayHello : string;
function Echo(args : TStringArray) :
On 27-12-2021 22:10, Noel Duffy via lazarus wrote:
On 28/12/21 01:47, Juha Manninen via lazarus wrote:
On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 1:44 AM Noel Duffy via lazarus <
lazarus@lists.lazarus-ide.org> wrote:
I need some help getting to the root of a problem with incorrect results
on Apple hardware (M1,
On 29/12/21 01:26, Bart via lazarus wrote:
fpc -al ulen.pas
> This will produce the file ulen.s
> You can attach or copy that here.
File is attached.
The output from running this program is:
% ./ulen
Signed version
Len = -100663283
Unsigned version
Len = 1
To add another wrinkle to this, th
On 28/12/2021 22:05, Noel Duffy via lazarus wrote:
On 29/12/21 01:26, Bart via lazarus wrote:
fpc -al ulen.pas
> This will produce the file ulen.s
> You can attach or copy that here.
File is attached.
Thanks.
And I think there is a bug in FPC
This is the signed version
# [43] Result += (p
On 29/12/21 10:47, Martin Frb via lazarus wrote:
On 28/12/2021 22:05, Noel Duffy via lazarus wrote:
On 29/12/21 01:26, Bart via lazarus wrote:
fpc -al ulen.pas
> This will produce the file ulen.s
> You can attach or copy that here.
File is attached.
Thanks.
And I think there is a bug in FP
On 28/12/2021 15:50, Bart via lazarus wrote:
On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 3:39 PM Marco van de Voort via lazarus
wrote:
On what machine did you test? The settings if for the generated code,
but the actual processor determines the effective speed.
I have a Intel i5 7th generation on my Win10-64 lap
On 28/12/2021 23:18, Noel Duffy via lazarus wrote:
The assembler produced by 3.2.2 looks like this:
# [43] Result += (pn8^ shr 7) and ((not pn8^) shr 6);
ldr x0,[sp]
ldrsb w0,[x0]
mvn w0,w0
mvn => bitwise not. And that applies to the whole register.
So I guess "eor w0
On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 11:35 PM Martin Frb via lazarus
wrote:
> I have a core I7-8600
> The diff between the old code and popcnt is less significant.
>
> old: 715
> pop: 695
>
> But there is a 3rd way, that is faster.
> add: 610
Not surprising that you should come up with a faster solution.
IIR
On 28-12-2021 23:35, Martin Frb via lazarus wrote:
"nx" has a single "1" in each of the 8 bytes in a Qword (based on 64bit).
If we regard each of this bytes as an entity of its own, then we can
keep adding those "1".
I also was thinking in that direction, but more about how to optimize
tha
27 matches
Mail list logo
