G'day all.
On Thu, Apr 18, 2002 at 09:09:59PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >> I've applied this, with the exception of the branch and bsr ops.
[...]
On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 11:01:35AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> The branches are relative to the current PC, the jumps take
> absolute addresse
At 12:03 PM +1000 4/19/02, Andrew J Bromage wrote:
>G'day all.
>
>On Thu, Apr 18, 2002 at 09:09:59PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
>> I've applied this, with the exception of the branch and bsr ops. At
>> the moment, I agree--I can't see any case where "if" or "gte" needs
>> to have a variable t
Andrew J Bromage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 10:06:10PM -0700, Steve Fink wrote:
>> - Local label addresses are only valid within the scope containing
>>the label (the result of jumping to someone else's local label is
>>undefined, possibly triggering an exceptio
G'day.
On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 10:06:10PM -0700, Steve Fink wrote:
> Do we want to restrict subs to a single entry point? (for example,
> what if you want one "initial" entry point, and one "resume" entry
> point that figures out where processing left off?)
Not necessarily. These are just idea
On Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 01:58:58PM +1000, Andrew J Bromage wrote:
> I think the problem could be fixed with some semantic constraints. For
> example:
>
> - No jumps between subs except through the sub's entry point
> are allowed.
Do we want to restrict subs to a single entry point
G'day all.
On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 01:08:46PM -0700, Steve Fink wrote:
> Should it be all one keyword, or should 'const' be an orthogonal
> modifier?
IMO, one modifier, because "const" doesn't make sense on any direction
but "in".
> > - Nobody is likely to use it any time soon.
>
> I will
> > - None of the JIT ports implement it. This will save work.
>
> As long as my JITed jumptables are fast.
If you like coding assembly :-)
>
> > - It is in general impossible for an optimizer to determine
> > where the branch targets are if you allow registers as
> > branch
On Thu, Apr 18, 2002 at 03:24:58PM +1000, Andrew J Bromage wrote:
> G'day all.
>
> This patch introduces a new op parameter type "inconst", which is like
> "in" except that it only produces const versions of the op (i.e. it
> will not take values from registers).
Should it be all one keyword, or
G'day all.
On Thu, Apr 18, 2002 at 09:09:59PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> I've applied this, with the exception of the branch and bsr ops. At
> the moment, I agree--I can't see any case where "if" or "gte" needs
> to have a variable target. (I can see it for branch, bsr, jump, and
> jsr, as
At 3:24 PM +1000 4/18/02, Andrew J Bromage wrote:
>G'day all.
>
>This patch introduces a new op parameter type "inconst", which is like
>"in" except that it only produces const versions of the op (i.e. it
>will not take values from registers).
>
>This is mostly for the benefit of branch targets.
G'day all.
On Thu, Apr 18, 2002 at 09:35:11AM -0400, Jason Gloudon wrote:
> Having registers provide the destination for some branches makes it
> possible to generate code that eliminates most of the comparisions
> needed to implement C style case/switch statements, so this is not a
> useless fe
On Thu, Apr 18, 2002 at 03:24:58PM +1000, Andrew J Bromage wrote:
> - Nobody is likely to use it any time soon.
People say that about my brain, but they haven't tried to take it from me
yet :)
Having registers provide the destination for some branches makes it possible to
generate code th
G'day all.
This patch introduces a new op parameter type "inconst", which is like
"in" except that it only produces const versions of the op (i.e. it
will not take values from registers).
This is mostly for the benefit of branch targets. The "feature" of
using register values as branch targets
13 matches
Mail list logo
