Re: [fpc-devel] RTTI interface & variant late binding issue (mORMot)

2015-04-06 Thread Florian Klaempfl 
I'll create a branch and commit the supplied patches so far, we can use
this branch to bring things into a reasonable shape.
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

[fpc-devel] Bug or Feature? Inline of code from Units does not work when types uses in code are defined in implementation

2015-04-06 Thread Michael Ring 
Take the following unit, my goal is to have the code called in the unit 
inlined in the main code.


This works fine when

type
  pLongWord = ^LongWord;

is defined in the interface of the unit.

if this is defined in Implementation then Inlining of the code does not 
work.


Is this correct behaviour? Or should both ways work?

Thank you,

Michael

Platform is arm-embedded, Compiler Commandline was:

/usr/local/lib/fpc/3.1.1/ppcrossarm -MObjFPC -Tembedded -Parm -Cparmv6m  
-WpSTM32L053R8 -XParm-none-eabi- test.pas -a -g -B -Si



unit utest2;
{$inline on}
{$modeswitch advancedrecords}
interface

type
  TBits_16 = 0..65535;

  // Independent watchdog
  TIWDG_KR_bits = record
  private
function getKEY  : TBits_16; inline;
procedure setKEY(value : TBits_16); inline;
  public
property KEY : TBits_16 read getKEY write setKEY;// [0:15] 
Key value (write only, read 0x)

  end;

  TIWDG_Registers = record
KR_bits  : TIWDG_KR_bits;
KR   : longWord;   // 0x00 Key register
  end;

const
IWDG_BASE  = $40003000;

var
IWDG   : TIWDG_Registers absolute IWDG_BASE;

//type
//  pLongWord = ^LongWord;

implementation

type
  pLongWord = ^LongWord;

function TIWDG_KR_bits.getKEY : TBits_16; inline;
begin
  getKEY := pLongWord(@self)^ shr 0 and %;
end;

procedure TIWDG_KR_bits.setKEY(value : TBits_16); inline;
begin
  pLongWord(@self)^ := pLongWord(@self)^ and 
% or (value shl 0);

end;

end.


Calling Prog:

program test;
{$INLINE ON}
{$modeswitch advancedrecords}
uses
  utest2;

var
  a : longWord;
begin
  IWDG.KR_bits.KEY := 1;
  a := IWDG.KR_bits.KEY;
end.
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] Bug or Feature? Inline of code from Units does not work when types uses in code are defined in implementation

2015-04-06 Thread Florian Klaempfl 
Am 06.04.2015 um 17:53 schrieb Michael Ring:
> Take the following unit, my goal is to have the code called in the unit
> inlined in the main code.
> 
> This works fine when
> 
> type
>   pLongWord = ^LongWord;
> 
> is defined in the interface of the unit.
> 
> if this is defined in Implementation then Inlining of the code does not
> work.
> 
> Is this correct behaviour? Or should both ways work?

Inline is only a recommendation to the compiler. Such a definition in
the implementation part prevents indeed inlining.

In this particular case I recommend that you just leave the definition
away so compiler uses that one of the system unit.
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] Bug or Feature? Inline of code from Units does not work when types uses in code are defined in implementation

2015-04-06 Thread Michael Ring 

Thanks,

So do you think it is worth to extend documentation for inline? Or 
perhaps the compiler could give a warning when code is not suitable for 
inlining or is this decision done when a caller requests inlining and 
not when the inline function gets compiled?


Michael

Am 06.04.15 um 18:59 schrieb Florian Klaempfl:

Am 06.04.2015 um 17:53 schrieb Michael Ring:

Take the following unit, my goal is to have the code called in the unit
inlined in the main code.

This works fine when

type
   pLongWord = ^LongWord;

is defined in the interface of the unit.

if this is defined in Implementation then Inlining of the code does not
work.

Is this correct behaviour? Or should both ways work?

Inline is only a recommendation to the compiler. Such a definition in
the implementation part prevents indeed inlining.

In this particular case I recommend that you just leave the definition
away so compiler uses that one of the system unit.
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel


___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] Bug or Feature? Inline of code from Units does not work when types uses in code are defined in implementation

2015-04-06 Thread Florian Klämpfl 
Am 06.04.2015 um 19:23 schrieb Michael Ring:
> Thanks,
> 
> So do you think it is worth to extend documentation for inline? Or perhaps 
> the compiler could give a
> warning when code is not suitable for inlining or is this decision done when 
> a caller requests
> inlining and not when the inline function gets compiled?

If the situation is clear, the compiler gives a hint. In this case, the 
procedure is inlined if it
is called in the same unit, otherwise not.

The decision, if a procedure can be inlined is pretty difficult and changes 
also from time to time,
so I prefer neither to document (situation might change and documentation gets 
wrong) it nor
increase the hints regarding this (sometimes it is really hard to explain why 
something is not inlined).
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel