David Heffernan

Ultimately, if exceptions are masked then there's no behavioural difference between SNaN and QNaN. Seems an odd design choice for x86 to change the NaN type though. Presumably there's a reason I'm not aware of. Normally I think I know my way around floating point, but when exceptions are masked is the great unknown for me. I've never been there. And when I explored moving to 12 I just unmasked them!!!

I don't have anything later than 11.3 installed. So there are likely changes that I'm not familiar with. The one thing that jumps to my mind is the ABI. Floating point return values travel via ST(0) in x86 but by a general purpose register in x64 (can't remember which). This means that it has traditionally not been possible to return SNaN by function return value in 32 bit, although it is possible to in 64 bit. That's because loading into ST(0) triggers invalid op. But now fp exceptions are masked by default. Anyway, that's all I know right now, not at a computer.

Not even sure if this is a bug.

I don't know why you don't attempt to debug your code.

You don't need this tool.

The original code looks fine. But you only showed an excerpt. Show a reproduction of an error and then somebody can tell you what is actually going on. Don't fix things until you understand them.

You very likely still shouldn't be showing user dialogs in a constructor. The fact that you made this design choice to meet a requirement does not mean that it was the right design choice.

I mean, come on, how could that test be relevant!

This point has been raised many times previously fwiw

Except aligned is now slower on modern cpus because of the less efficient cache usage when there is padding.

It is if you use a proper memory manager

This was true once upon a time but is not true for modern x86-64 architectures.

You've spent more time posting here than you would ever save from this feature existing

But it doesn't change from one build to the next. Or is your problem that on Monday you know that the executable is 25mb but come Tuesday you've forgotten. Maybe you should get some post it notes.

So check the size in explorer. Not like you need to do this repeatedly. Are you having trouble using explorer?

Yeah, I couldn't believe that anon methods arrived way back in Delphi 2009. I thought they were a much younger feature!!

What specific feature are you talking about here?

Doesn't seem very useful to me. I wouldn't prioritise this.

I don't know why you aren't facing up to the reality that you need to write some C++ code.

You can't declare this structure in Delphi because it uses the STL type std::vector.

Delphi 7 is also long dead.

Why do you need a smaller exe?

Consider sharing a program that behaves this way

Code editors telling you stuff is great but the bigger problem is the missing functionality at the fundamental language level.

Classic delphi type ambiguity consequence