Re: [fpc-devel] function evaluation by a debugger

2017-10-17 Thread Dmitry Boyarintsev
Hello, On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Jonas Maebe wrote: > a) even if gdb would not complain, you would probably get a crash because > as mentioned before, on i386 FPC by default uses the completely > non-standard "Borland fastcall" calling convention, for which gdb

Re: [fpc-devel] x86_64.inc CompareByte

2017-10-17 Thread Florian Klämpfl
Am 16.10.2017 um 23:08 schrieb Markus Beth: > On 16.10.2017 22:41, Florian Klämpfl wrote: >>> P.S.: I am currently working on another version of CompareByte that might >>> have a slightly higher >>> latency for very small len but a higher throughput (2 cycles per iteration >>> vs. 3 cycles on an

Re: [fpc-devel] PIOFile Arm Linux

2017-10-17 Thread Desmond Coertzen
TProcess rocks. I stress tested on a pi3 with large gulps using TProcess.Output.Read Thank you. On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Marco van de Voort wrote: > In our previous episode, Desmond Coertzen said: > > > > Anyone knows which unit I need to get to PIOFILE and related

Re: [fpc-devel] Closures / anonymous methods

2017-10-17 Thread Marcos Douglas B. Santos
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 9:56 PM, Blaise Thorn wrote: > There has been some feature-level progress; in particular, capturing across > arbitrary level of nested and nameless routines is now supported, along with > proper lifetime management. > > Sven has read-write access to the

Re: [fpc-devel] x86_64.inc CompareByte

2017-10-17 Thread Sven Barth via fpc-devel
Am 16.10.2017 23:04 schrieb "Markus Beth" : > > On 16.10.2017 22:41, Florian Klämpfl wrote: >> BTW: I would really like to see a PCMPSTR based implementation :) > > PCMPSTR is (at the moment) out of my scope. I thought PCMPSTR is part of SSE4.2. How would you deal with Intel