[fpc-devel] "Blank slate" next version of FPC

[J. Gareth Moreton]

 On the contrary... I'm all for new features if they gel well with the
language, although I try to research and theorise how they can benefit the
compiler and the code it generates.  My current patches haven't been as
well-received as I had hoped, possibly due to lack of documentation and
provable stability etc.  (The biggest one overhauls the x86 Peephole
Optimizer by merging 6 passes into 1 for a speed boost of up to 15% on -O3,
but some of the individual optimisation routines are more complex as a
result, mostly so -O1 and -O2 don't perform worse).
 I'm wondering now, in the name of project management, if such feature
proposals and patches should come with a comprehensive design spec, if not
to justify the changes then to at least explain how everything works.

 Gareth aka. Kit

 On Wed 20/02/19 20:33 , Florian Klämpfl florian at freepascal.org sent:
 Am 20.02.19 um 08:36 schrieb Paul van Helden: 
 > As a big 
 > fan of the Pascal language, I'd rather break compatibility and see the 
 > language evolve than the stoic attitude of the core devs as seen on this

 > list. 

 People could change this attitude by contributing to FPC. But very few 
 do constantly with high quality patches. The current FPC devs are simply 
 overloaded with the areas they have to maintain so it is pretty clear 
 that excitement about new features is very low. 
 _______________________________________________ 
 fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel at lists.freepascal.org [1] 
 http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
[2]">http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel 

 

Links:
------
[1] mailto:fpc-devel at lists.freepascal.org
[2] http://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/20190220/5485676a/attachment.html>