[fpc-pascal] rotating bits

[Florian Klaempfl]

DSTRODT at aol.com wrote:
> 
>> Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
> 
>>Well, if we're going in that direction anyway:
>>Why not include all possible assembler instructions then ?
>>
>>Let's be serious. You must draw the line somewhere.
>>I think these instructions are so exotic, they are pollution of the
> system unit.
>  
> I agree with Michael. And I think the line is clearly drawn. The FPC
> (and more importantly the language syntax itself) design goal, as I
> understand it, is to be, as much as possible, platform and architecture
> independent and doesn't need to be "polluted" by adding esoteric
> functions/(worst yet)operators becuase they are neat on one particular
> type of machine and we just program around them everywhere else.

This conclusion is drawn on wrong assumptions: the rot instructions
aren't esoteric but supported by at least the four most important CPU
platforms (i386, x86_64, powerpc and arm) and needed for efficient
cryptographic and graphics algorithms.

> Rather, if your application really needs that function, you have
> a number of suggestions on how to implement that within your own
> application, so do that, but I don't think the compiler should be
> expected to do it for you.

I didn't saw usable suggestions for non i386 platforms :)