Leo --
Here is a simple Jako test program, which exercises the assignment syntax:
var int a, b, c;
var num d, e;
var str f, g;
a = 5;
a = b = c = 5;
d = 3.14;
d = e = 3.14;
f = "Howdy";
f = g = "Howdy";
a = b;
a = b = c;
Here it is compiled to IMC:
.sub __MODULE__
.local int a # var int a;
.local int b # var int b;
.local int c # var int c;
.local float d # var num d;
.local float e # var num e;
.local string f # var str f;
.local string g # var str g;
a = 5 # a = 5;
a = 5 # a = 5;
b = 5 # b = 5;
c = 5 # c = 5;
d = 3.14 # d = 3.14;
d = 3.14 # d = 3.14;
e = 3.14 # e = 3.14;
f = "Howdy" # f = "Howdy";
f = "Howdy" # f = "Howdy";
g = "Howdy" # g = "Howdy";
a = b # a = b;
a = c # a = c;
b = c # b = c;
end
.end
And, here is the PASM imcc turns it into:
__MODULE__:
set I2, 5
set I2, 5
set I0, 5
set I1, 5
set N0, 3.14
set N0, 3.14
set N0, 3.14
set S0, "Howdy"
set S0, "Howdy"
set S0, "Howdy"
set I2, I0
set I2, I1
set I0, I1
end
I don't understand how d and e both become N0, nor how both f and g become
S0. a, b, and c all seem to get their own registers. Is there some
optimization going on here since in both cases (num and str), the assigns
are from the same constant table location? Is imcc smart enough to realize
that the above transformation doesn't change the semantics of my program,
or is it perhaps a bug?
Regards,
-- Gregor
