[fpc-devel] if-then-else expression

[Benito van der Zander]

Hi,

> Implicit function specialization would change that, however that would 
> mean the generation of a specialized definition each time it is used 
> in a different unit and for every type.
>

This calls for a space optimizer that removes unnecessary specializations


3 optimizations could one have:

* If the project already has a specialization with the types in any 
unit, then it will not be generated again

* If two different specialization create the same assembly, then the 
previous specialization will be reused (bitwise comparison of the code 
after it has been generated)

* a semantic analysis that determines whether the specialization is 
actually necessary and then does not generate anything new if it is not.
   (e.g. if a function is generic <T: TObject>, but no properties of T 
are used, but it only cast a result to T (like e.g. a generic 
TList.get), then it can create the function for TObject once and then 
never again for T.  )

Best,
Benito

On 06.09.25 11:47, Sven Barth via fpc-devel wrote:
> michael via fpc-devel <fpc-devel at lists.freepascal.org> schrieb am Do., 
> 4. Sep. 2025, 09:29:
>
>     On 2025-09-04 08:55, Hairy Pixels via fpc-devel wrote:
>     > On Sep 4, 2025 at 1:43:23 PM, michael via fpc-devel
>     > <fpc-devel at lists.freepascal.org> wrote:
>     >
>     >> Personally, I think we already have too much intrinsics to begin
>     >> with;
>     >> no matter their behaviour. But that is another discussion
>     >> entirely...
>     >
>     >  How so? The reason intrinsics are used is because they can’t be
>     > replicated at runtime. If you remove them then you lose that
>     > functionality entirely.
>
>     As I wrote, for some it is needed. No arguments there.
>
>     But AFAIK many regular functions such as Length(), Inc/Dec() etc. are
>     also converted to intrinsics.
>
>     No doubt for performance reasons, but I'd rather have as little as
>     possible "compiler magic".
>
>
> Not performance reasons, but because they need to be usable by many 
> types and thus can't be expressed using ordinary Pascal in a typesafe way.
> Implicit function specialization would change that, however that would 
> mean the generation of a specialized definition each time it is used 
> in a different unit and for every type.
>
> Regards,
> Sven
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> fpc-devel maillist  -fpc-devel at lists.freepascal.org
> https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freepascal.org/pipermail/fpc-devel/attachments/20250908/498d5e7e/attachment.htm>