Sergei Gorelkin schrieb:
Florian Klaempfl wrote:
Help me, why do we need dfa :)?
I am not sure that we need the particular DFA from optdfa.pas, but
something to reduce conservativeness of escape analysis is definitely
needed. Otherwise, temps that are needed for just one particular case of
On 16 Dec 2007, at 10:12, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
Sergei Gorelkin schrieb:
I am not sure that we need the particular DFA from optdfa.pas, but
something to reduce conservativeness of escape analysis is definitely
needed. Otherwise, temps that are needed for just one particular
case of
Jonas Maebe schrieb:
On 16 Dec 2007, at 10:12, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
Sergei Gorelkin schrieb:
I am not sure that we need the particular DFA from optdfa.pas, but
something to reduce conservativeness of escape analysis is definitely
needed. Otherwise, temps that are needed for just one
On 16 Dec 2007, at 11:13, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
Jonas Maebe schrieb:
On 16 Dec 2007, at 10:12, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
Sergei Gorelkin schrieb:
I am not sure that we need the particular DFA from optdfa.pas, but
something to reduce conservativeness of escape analysis is
definitely
Sergei Gorelkin wrote:
Florian Klaempfl wrote:
Ok, so I guess we can change this. Anybody volunteer to implement it :)?
Well, if there is no hard time schedule imposed on this, I can try. I've
started all this, after all :)
I had investigated the issue. Surprisingly enough, changing
Sergei Gorelkin schrieb:
Sergei Gorelkin wrote:
Florian Klaempfl wrote:
Ok, so I guess we can change this. Anybody volunteer to implement it :)?
Well, if there is no hard time schedule imposed on this, I can try.
I've started all this, after all :)
I had investigated the issue.
Florian Klaempfl wrote:
Help me, why do we need dfa :)?
I am not sure that we need the particular DFA from optdfa.pas, but
something to reduce conservativeness of escape analysis is definitely
needed. Otherwise, temps that are needed for just one particular case of
x:=f(x) are being
Thorsten Engler schrieb:
Are you sure with the strings?
Yes. Any function that returns a string is supplied with one more
argument than it was declared. After calling the function, register
eax (which is used to contain the non-parameter result) is not used.
Here is a simple example:
I'am
Florian Klaempfl wrote:
Ok, so I guess we can change this. Anybody volunteer to implement it :)?
Well, if there is no hard time schedule imposed on this, I can try. I've
started all this, after all :)
Sergei
___
fpc-devel maillist -
Are you sure with the strings?
Yes. Any function that returns a string is supplied with one more
argument than it was declared. After calling the function, register
eax (which is used to contain the non-parameter result) is not used.
Here is a simple example:
I'am not sure but
10 matches
Mail list logo
