Hello,
I have a quick question: are there (m)any people here who store/load
sets to/from files?
The reason is that we are considering to change the internal format
of sets in FPC on big endian machines. The reason is that this would
be necessary to allow byte-packing of sets (so that e.g.
On 14 nov 2006, at 13:15, Tom Verhoeff wrote:
For purposes of converting between one representation and the other,
it might be nice to provide a means to declare "old"sets, which use
the
current representation, _alongside_ the new sets, which use the
improved
representation. Then it would
> On 14 nov 2006, at 12:32, Ewald Horn wrote:
>
> > is it possible to keep a legacy reader in place ? That way it'll be
> > easy to read old data and convert it to the new format and have
> > little impact on historic data. If you happen to work on a big
> > endian machine you could then do
On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 11:47:37AM +0100, Jonas Maebe wrote:
>
> I have a quick question: are there (m)any people here who store/load
> sets to/from files?
I do not mix sets and files, but I do mix sets and Single/Double
in a record to decompose floating point numbers.
However, I don't see a b
Hi,
is it possible to keep a legacy reader in place ? That way it'll be easy to
read old data and convert it to the new format and have little impact on
historic data. If you happen to work on a big endian machine you could then
do a once-off conversion.
Kind regards
Ewald Horn
On 14 nov 2006, at 12:32, Ewald Horn wrote:
is it possible to keep a legacy reader in place ? That way it'll be
easy to read old data and convert it to the new format and have
little impact on historic data. If you happen to work on a big
endian machine you could then do a once-off convers
On 14 nov 2006, at 13:31, Vincent Snijders wrote:
A set of 0..63 requires 64 bits, doesn't it?
Yes, my mistake.
Jonas
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
On 14 nov 2006, at 13:20, Marco van de Voort wrote:
is it possible to keep a legacy reader in place ? That way it'll be
easy to read old data and convert it to the new format and have
little impact on historic data. If you happen to work on a big
endian machine you could then do a once-off conv
> On 14 nov 2006, at 13:20, Marco van de Voort wrote:
>
> >>> is it possible to keep a legacy reader in place ? That way it'll be
> >>> easy to read old data and convert it to the new format and have
> >>> little impact on historic data. If you happen to work on a big
> >>> endian machine you coul
Another question, do you intend to fix the other size problem too? (another
Delphi incompatability)
I mean by this sets of x..y having a size of roundup((y-z+1)/8) with z as
x rounded down to the lower multiple of 8.
IOW, a set of 79..83 is two bytes in delphi.
___
Marco van de Voort schrieb:
> Another question, do you intend to fix the other size problem too? (another
> Delphi incompatability)
>
> I mean by this sets of x..y having a size of roundup((y-z+1)/8) with z as
> x rounded down to the lower multiple of 8.
>
> IOW, a set of 79..83 is two bytes i
Jonas Maebe schreef:
Hello,
sets in FPC on big endian machines. The reason is that this would be
necessary to allow byte-packing of sets (so that e.g. a set of 0..63
would only occupy 1 byte as opposed to 4 like is currently the case).
A set of 0..63 requires 64 bits, doesn't it? So it woul
On Tuesday 14 November 2006 11:47, Jonas Maebe wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have a quick question: are there (m)any people here who store/load
> sets to/from files?
It would be nice to have an option like
{$MINENUMSIZE xxx}
so that binary compatibility with frequently used
bitmasks in C APIs is easier
On 14 Nov 2006, at 22:04, Den Jean wrote:
so that binary compatibility with frequently used
bitmasks in C APIs is easier
Aren't bitpacked records/arrays more appropriate for that?
Jonas
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
h
Op Tue, 14 Nov 2006, schreef Jonas Maebe:
>
> On 14 Nov 2006, at 22:04, Den Jean wrote:
>
> > so that binary compatibility with frequently used
> > bitmasks in C APIs is easier
>
> Aren't bitpacked records/arrays more appropriate for that?
Semantically speaking, no.
Daniël__
On 14 Nov 2006, at 23:12, Daniël Mantione wrote:
Op Tue, 14 Nov 2006, schreef Jonas Maebe:
On 14 Nov 2006, at 22:04, Den Jean wrote:
so that binary compatibility with frequently used
bitmasks in C APIs is easier
Aren't bitpacked records/arrays more appropriate for that?
Semantically spe
16 matches
Mail list logo
