This seems to completely reformat all files, I can't see what actually changed?

A few blank double lines were deleted.

I'm sorry; I can't accept a pull request that reformats > 500 lines and also does functionality changes. It would completely break the git history

"functionality changes" do not change, but only fixed.

Base code is very poorly formatted (tabs, trailed spaces, duplicated blank lines, line breaks in class declarations). :(

"Beyond compare" can ignore the insignificant differences in formatting.

Tested, it works fine for me. Thanks

Errata corrige

There is a problem with function with args and an extended value as result

Program test;
var
AValue : Extended;
begin
AValue := StrToDate('10/10/2017');
writeln(DateToStr(AValue));
end.

the result of StrToDate is always 30/12/1899

Although @pult fix for GPF is brilliant and I'm not sure why it's not in the main branch, though as @albertozen2 detailed it stops any functions that return an extended value in the result from working - they don't need to have arguments, something like NOW just returns 30/12/1899.
Has anyone found a fix for this major issue ?

i commented two lines into x64.inc code file.

movsd xmm0,[RegInfo].TRegisters._RCX
movsd xmm1,[RegInfo].TRegisters._RDX

i commented two lines into x64.inc code file.

movsd xmm0,[RegInfo].TRegisters._RCX movsd xmm1,[RegInfo].TRegisters._RDX

Thanks @albertozen2 do you mean you removed them from x64.inc like this ?

@@skip_items:

// mov , [r9]. ; [r9] == [RegInfo]
mov rcx, [RegInfo].TRegisters._RCX
mov rdx, [RegInfo].TRegisters._RDX
mov r8, [RegInfo].TRegisters._R8

// movsd xmm0,[RegInfo].TRegisters._RCX
// movsd xmm1,[RegInfo].TRegisters._RDX
movsd xmm2,[RegInfo].TRegisters._R8
movsd xmm3,[RegInfo].TRegisters._R9

For me the result of StrToDate is still 30/12/1899 :(
Have I understood wrongly ?

I report the full code block. The commented lines are bold
The code is between line 591 and line 610 (in my x64.inc).
I hope that change can help you

{
Alberto Zen 20/03/2018
movsd xmm0,[RegInfo].TRegisters._RCX
movsd xmm1,[RegInfo].TRegisters._RDX
}
movsd xmm2,[RegInfo].TRegisters._R8
movsd xmm3,[RegInfo].TRegisters._R9

mov r9, [RegInfo].TRegisters._R9 // !!! Overwritten RegInfo (r9)

call [rbp+c_loc_offs_adress]

// make result
mov rdx, [rbp+c_loc_offs__rax] // restore: rdx (@_RDX)
mov [rdx], RAX // fill: _RAX

{
Alberto Zen 20/03/2018
movsd [rdx+c_sz_ptr], XMM0 // fill: _XMM0
}

i commented two lines into x64.inc code file.

movsd xmm0,[RegInfo].TRegisters._RCX movsd xmm1,[RegInfo].TRegisters._RDX

Do you mean you added to extra lines ? If so where do they go ?

I report the full code block. The commented lines are bold
The code is between line 591 and line 610 (in my x64.inc).
I hope that change can help you

{ Alberto Zen 20/03/2018 movsd xmm0,[RegInfo].TRegisters._RCX movsd xmm1,[RegInfo].TRegisters._RDX }
movsd xmm2,[RegInfo].TRegisters._R8
movsd xmm3,[RegInfo].TRegisters._R9

mov r9, [RegInfo].TRegisters._R9 // !!! Overwritten RegInfo (r9)

call [rbp+c_loc_offs_adress]

// make result
mov rdx, [rbp+c_loc_offs__rax] // restore: rdx (@_RDX)
mov [rdx], RAX // fill: _RAX

{ Alberto Zen 20/03/2018 movsd [rdx+c_sz_ptr], XMM0 // fill: _XMM0 }

I have copied you code exactly, but for me the result is still 30/12/1899 :(

Sorry, i looked for in my repository but i didn't find other changes.
Have you rebuilt the package?

Sorry, i looked for in my repository but i didn't find other changes.
Have you rebuilt the package?

I'm not using packages, code is just compiled in to my app. I've confirmed that the updated x64.inc file is being compiled.
Not sure I understand the code well enough to debug further without some help.
Are you using Delphi Rio too ?

No, Berlin

x64.inc new fixes

Thank You, now it works :-)

@pult , your branch works, the official doesn't :-)
this script in official branch of PascalScript doesn't work
**_

program main;
var
myDate : TDateTime;
abuf : string;
begin
myDate := StrToDate('25/09/2020');
aBuf := DateTostr(myDate);
end.

_**
It raises an exception.

@pult you feel like checking the conflicts? I'll try to merge this next week (I do have to dig into the changes though, I see a lot of changes not relevant to this change, and I have to check them 1 by one).

@pult @carlokok @albertozen2
Did this get merged in to the master ?
Not sure what I need to Get to build under Sydney ?