Attila Kovacs

if you don't have "Plan B", you should not try to catch exceptions

Like Delphi?

And you can fire up a new project having everything needed in just seconds. Regardless if for testing/new feature/completely new app etc...

Turn this to an advantage. It will pay off.

I don't.

I've got tired restarting the IDE because of the recurring AV when I was adding a new unit/form etc.. to the current project. Looks like it was fixed in 10.3 https://quality.embarcadero.com/browse/RSP-15471 I don't know, because I'm still on 10.1 U2, and there will be never an official patch for that. The problem is crystal clear: 2203A97A E861C7E6FF call $21ea70e0 ; FindTopEditView 2203A97F 8B4044 mov eax,[eax+$44] not checking against "nil" in EAX. (Why this returning nil after an amount of time is a different question and it's not something we could ever fix in the binaries) the fix is almost as easy as spotting the problem, detouring the call, and do some check: procedure PatchStructuralHighlighterCode; asm call FindTopEditView TEST EAX, EAX JNE @ok call PErrorProc // debug logging jmp ReturnNil @ok: jmp Return end; Now, @FindTopEditView, @ReturnNil and @Return are version specific values, obviously, I have the addresses only for my IDE version. As I don't feel the urge for maintaining and supporting fixes for Delphi but I would share the details if anybody is interested.

The Oracle: What’s really going to bake your noodle later on is, would you still have broken it if I hadn’t said anything.

I'm wondering if you are also getting a big fat AV for ctrl-b on the welcome page if parnassus is installed. 10.1U2

@Mike Torrettinni And the same code can perform differently on different CPU's. Because the "integer iterator" does nothing else just calculates the pointer + i over and over. So basically it's a shortcut.

@Stefan Glienke thx, updated. Strange, with 10.1U2 it's definitely much faster if not storing it. O+ W- asm: ec4.txt

Slightly modified Stefan's beautiful routine. If I did not screw it up, it's faster because of comparing against the stack (parameters aChar1, aChar2), (I can't explain that), and omitting "sr" leaves more register for the compiler, which was a speed boost again. Also, the initial "while" became a "repeat until", and instead of "P^ = #0" there is a " P = ep". function ExtractContent4(const S: string; const aChar1, aChar2: Char): string; var P, ep, r: PChar; len: integer; begin len := S.Length; if len = 0 then exit(S); SetLength(Result, len); r := Pointer(Result); P := Pointer(S); ep := P + len; repeat r^ := P^; if P^ = aChar1 then begin repeat inc(P); until (P^ = aChar2) or (P = ep); end else inc(r); inc(P); until P > ep; SetLength(Result, r - Pointer(Result)); end;

no-no, the compiler runs out of registers if do so, always testing separately Nice routine. I don't know why but if you use parameters instead if consts it performs even better. (Despite comparing against the stack) ExtractContent(const S: string; const aChar1, aChar2: Char); this boost it even further: var zero: Char; zero := #0; until (P^ = aChar2) or (P^ = zero); or even better: until (P^ = aChar2) or (P = ep);

Looking into the Move() implementation, wth is happened to rep movs*? Is it too slow nowadays?

You are right, even around the Move() was some string magic. With passing PChar is even faster. As for the result type, I'll let it for Mike to tune it.

@Mike Torrettinni Slightly modified, wasn't round everything.

Player 3 entered the game (edited) function RemoveTextBetweenChars(const aString: string; const aChar1, aChar2: Char): string; label exit; var c: integer; P, start, res: PChar; begin if aString <> '' then begin SetLength(Result, aString.Length); res := Pointer(Result); P := Pointer(aString); c := 0; while True do begin start := P; while P^ <> aChar1 do begin inc(P); if P^ = #0 then begin Move(start^, res[c], (P - start) * SizeOf(Char)); inc(c, P - start); goto exit; end; end; Move(start^, res[c], (P - start) * SizeOf(Char)); inc(c, P - start); while P^ <> aChar2 do begin inc(P); if P^ = #0 then goto exit; end; inc(P); if P^ = #0 then goto exit; end; exit: SetLength(Result, c); end; end;

they are busy with bumping Delphi 7 licences

Move( PFirmWare(FXmodemFile.Items[Line])^.buffer, buffer[0], Length(PFirmWare(FXmodemFile.Items[Line])^.buffer) );

No, this is the good thing 😉 I've a batch file for building the release versions.

@limelect thx for confirming. It was acquired by emba, It's in getit, so there will be no new releases for older IDE's.

All good. It was in my comment that this is only for static text, and if you would argue then you should have asked what if somebody want 2.5 x space distance 😉

btw. how did you separate the words back in the high school?

of course does it work, just set the font size to 2. what is your problem?

Only if the text is dynamic or multilang. So in 99.99% the cases could work. Caption = ' Unga'#13#10' Bunga' WordWrap = True

I installed from the sources, I never install binaries. I don't even have a Delphi like those precompiled versions. I don't even get it why are they different, nevermind.