At 11:24 PM 9/8/2001 -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
> >>>>> "BW" == Brian Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
> BW> =item and tx, ty, tz *
>
> BW> Bitwise And all bits in y with z and store the result in register x.
> BW> (x = y & z)
>
>just a minor thought on parrot assembler argument order. dan seems to
>have picked the result register to be first. my experience with the
>pdp-11 left me with the result on the right. i think the vax (dan's
>favorite) followed dec's tradition and kept the result on the right. is
>this ordering final?
The VAX wasn't my favorite assembly. (Never did any, thinking about it) I
was rather fond of both the 68K and the 6502. (Okay, so I was young and
impressionable... :)
Destination on the left makes parsing the assembly a bit easier. We've not
gotten to the tricky bits yet, but those are coming.
[odd bitops snipped. We'll deal with them later]
>why the abbreviated op names? we don't want another creat(2)
>controversy. :) i don't think we need to limit our op code names to any
>length. old assemblers did so because of the odd speed up tricks. since
>the parrot assembler will rarely be used directly and it will be written
>in perl. shift_l is clearer. but then, i and many others learned short
>assembler op names without trouble. we should have some consensus on op
>name styles. underscores? longer names encouraged? etc.
Names should be in all lower case, and short but not truncated. Try to
avoid underscores, but shift_l and shift_r are OK. (I'll get to the
underscore issues later)
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
