At 10:36 AM 9/24/2001 -0400, Michael Maraist wrote: >On Mon, 24 Sep 2001, Buggs wrote: > > > On Monday 24 September 2001 03:27, Dan Sugalski wrote: > > > At 01:47 AM 9/24/2001 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote: > > > >http://astray.com/mandlebrot.pasm > > > > > > > >Leon, you're a sick, sick man. > > > > > > Okay, I think that means we need to weld in bitmap handling opcodes into > > > the interpreter. :) > >Woohoo.. How many times have we seen code like this: >sub log2($) >{ > my $val = shift; > my $idx = 0; > $idx++ while $val >>=1; > return $idx; >} > >I'd love to see a full compliment of bit-code like the 386 had (oh the >days). :) That includes get_index_of_left_most_bit (alias log2_i_i), >get_index_of_first_[one|zero] (which is useful for searching bitmaps). >count_ones. I'd have to go get my old [345]86 assembly book for the rest. >This is useful stuff people. :) Heck, on x86 platforms would could use >#ifdefs and assembly. :) Tell me this wouldn't be cool? This would be cool, and I'll raise you the VAX bit handling code on top of it. However... I was talking about a different instance of "bitmap". More like: newbm P3, (640, 480, 24, 8) # Make a 640X480, 24 bit image # with 8 bits of alpha drawline P3, (100, 100, 200, 200, green) # Draw a green line from # 100, 100 to 200,200 and so on. Dan --------------------------------------"it's like this"------------------- Dan Sugalski even samurai [EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even teddy bears get drunk
