On 4/9/2011 14:37, Joost van der Sluis wrote:
On Sat, 2011-04-09 at 13:05 -0700, ABorka wrote:
Just like the "make install" does not copy the FCL-web units to the
right place, "make clean" does not remove them either. Here is the output:
.
.
.
C:/pp/bin/i386-win32/make.EXE -C fcl-web distclean
On Sat, 2011-04-09 at 12:43 -0700, ABorka wrote:
> On 4/9/2011 11:26, Joost van der Sluis wrote:
> > On Sat, 2011-04-09 at 00:22 -0700, ABorka wrote:
> >> Is it intentional that the fcl-web package is not copied when "make
> >> install" is called?
> >> "make all" compiles the units properly, they a
On Sat, 2011-04-09 at 13:05 -0700, ABorka wrote:
> Just like the "make install" does not copy the FCL-web units to the
> right place, "make clean" does not remove them either. Here is the output:
>
> .
> .
> .
> C:/pp/bin/i386-win32/make.EXE -C fcl-web distclean
> make.EXE[2]: Entering directory
Am 09.04.2011 22:22, schrieb Sergei Gorelkin:
> 09.04.2011 23:10, Florian Klämpfl пишет:
>>
>> Problem is, this might hurt non leaf functions. Maybe the register
>> allocators can be initialized differently for leave and non-leave
>> functions?
>
> I understand the concern, but it should be handle
09.04.2011 23:10, Florian Klämpfl пишет:
Problem is, this might hurt non leaf functions. Maybe the register
allocators can be initialized differently for leave and non-leave functions?
I understand the concern, but it should be handled somehow already. If we consider a non-leaf
function that
Just like the "make install" does not copy the FCL-web units to the
right place, "make clean" does not remove them either. Here is the output:
.
.
.
C:/pp/bin/i386-win32/make.EXE -C fcl-web distclean
make.EXE[2]: Entering directory `C:/fpc_svn/packages/fcl-web'
make.EXE[2]: Nothing to be done fo
On 4/9/2011 12:43, ABorka wrote:
On 4/9/2011 11:26, Joost van der Sluis wrote:
On Sat, 2011-04-09 at 00:22 -0700, ABorka wrote:
Is it intentional that the fcl-web package is not copied when "make
install" is called?
"make all" compiles the units properly, they are just not copied by
"make insta
On 4/9/2011 11:26, Joost van der Sluis wrote:
On Sat, 2011-04-09 at 00:22 -0700, ABorka wrote:
Is it intentional that the fcl-web package is not copied when "make
install" is called?
"make all" compiles the units properly, they are just not copied by
"make install".
Are you sure? Which files d
Am 09.04.2011 21:34, schrieb Daniël Mantione:
> I think the challenge is do design some generic infrastructure to tell
> the register allocator about biasing it should do, and then to add some
> heuristics somewhere else (like leaf/non-leaf) to give the register
> allocator the proper instructions.
Op Sat, 9 Apr 2011, schreef Florian Klämpfl:
Am 09.04.2011 21:04, schrieb Sergei Gorelkin:
09.04.2011 22:26, Sergei Gorelkin ?:
09.04.2011 22:13, Jonas Maebe ?:
Simply changing the register order in the array to trgcpu.create in
Tcgx86_64.init_register_allocators should do it.
Hm
Am 09.04.2011 21:04, schrieb Sergei Gorelkin:
> 09.04.2011 22:26, Sergei Gorelkin пишет:
>> 09.04.2011 22:13, Jonas Maebe пишет:
>>>
>>> Simply changing the register order in the array to trgcpu.create in
>>> Tcgx86_64.init_register_allocators should do it.
>>>
>> Hmm, that was the first thing I tr
09.04.2011 22:15, Florian Klämpfl пишет:
The registers are allocated in the order defined in
tcgx86_64.init_registers_allocators. However, there are rax etc. in
front of rbx etc. The reason why rbx etc. are used might be calls to
other procedures. Can you give an example which is affected by the
09.04.2011 22:26, Sergei Gorelkin пишет:
09.04.2011 22:13, Jonas Maebe пишет:
Simply changing the register order in the array to trgcpu.create in
Tcgx86_64.init_register_allocators should do it.
Hmm, that was the first thing I tried, but it doesnt't seem to make any
difference :(
No, it wo
09.04.2011 22:13, Jonas Maebe пишет:
On 09 Apr 2011, at 20:08, Sergei Gorelkin wrote:
I wonder whether it is possible to assign a priority (or order) of registers
for FPC's register allocator. Currently registers are allocated in the order of
ordinals defined in cpubase.pas. On i386 it doesn
On Sat, 2011-04-09 at 00:22 -0700, ABorka wrote:
> Is it intentional that the fcl-web package is not copied when "make
> install" is called?
> "make all" compiles the units properly, they are just not copied by
> "make install".
Are you sure? Which files do you think are not copied? Do you
cross
Am 09.04.2011 20:08, schrieb Sergei Gorelkin:
> Hello,
>
> I wonder whether it is possible to assign a priority (or order) of
> registers for FPC's register allocator. Currently registers are
> allocated in the order of ordinals defined in cpubase.pas. On i386 it
> doesn't make any difference, but
On 09 Apr 2011, at 20:08, Sergei Gorelkin wrote:
> I wonder whether it is possible to assign a priority (or order) of registers
> for FPC's register allocator. Currently registers are allocated in the order
> of ordinals defined in cpubase.pas. On i386 it doesn't make any difference,
> but on
Hello,
I wonder whether it is possible to assign a priority (or order) of registers for FPC's register
allocator. Currently registers are allocated in the order of ordinals defined in cpubase.pas. On
i386 it doesn't make any difference, but on x86_64 'nonvolatile' rbx (and in Win64 also rsi and
Is it intentional that the fcl-web package is not copied when "make
install" is called?
"make all" compiles the units properly, they are just not copied by
"make install".
I've tried the latest SVN trunk version on WinXP 32bit.
___
fpc-devel maillist
19 matches
Mail list logo
