Re: Backward branch, warnocked.

2004-02-03 Thread Harry Jackson
Dan Sugalski wrote: Your code is fine. It *should* work. That it doesn't is a bug, which needs fixing. For now you're going to have to work around it. I would have swore the code was wrong. Am I being naive thinking that a call to a sub is different than what looked like a call to a label. On fur

Re: Backward branch, warnocked.

2004-02-03 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 1:12 AM + 2/3/04, Pete Lomax wrote: Leo clarified this as a problem with backward branch circa 3/12/03: Sorry to be a pain in the butt, but I need to be told that there has been no improvement in the last two months on this ;-( Short answer: Don't do that. Longer answer: IMCC ought to notic

Re: Backward branch, warnocked.

2004-02-03 Thread Simon Cozens
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leopold Toetsch) writes: > It can be fixed. It'll take a lot of overhead. Following all branches in > spaghetti code is a PITA. > > Just don't do that. Separate your subs in distinct compilation units. And then you don't need to worry about the fact that Parrot running computer

Re: Backward branch, warnocked.

2004-02-03 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Pete Lomax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Leo clarified this as a problem with backward branch circa 3/12/03: > Surely it can't just be me that thinks this is rather fundamental? > How fundamental *is* the problem, can it *ever* be fixed? It can be fixed. It'll take a lot of overhead. Following al

Re: Backward branch, warnocked.

2004-02-03 Thread Harry Jackson
Pete Lomax wrote: Leo clarified this as a problem with backward branch circa 3/12/03: Sorry to be a pain in the butt, but I need to be told that there has been no improvement in the last two months on this ;-( ..sub _main goto L1 test: $I1 = 1 ret L1: $I2 = 2

Re: Backward branch, warnocked.

2004-02-02 Thread Pete Lomax
On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 20:51:21 -0500 (EST), Michal Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, Pete Lomax wrote: > >> .sub _main >> goto L1 >> test: >> $I1 = 1 >> ret >> L1: >> $I2 = 2 >> call test >> print $I2 # prints 1, not 2 >> end >> .

Re: Backward branch, warnocked.

2004-02-02 Thread Michal Wallace
On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, Pete Lomax wrote: > .sub _main > goto L1 > test: > $I1 = 1 > ret > L1: > $I2 = 2 > call test > print $I2 # prints 1, not 2 > end > .end ... > Again, sorry to be a pain, but I'd like the truth/an update, please! > Or some h

Backward branch, warnocked.

2004-02-02 Thread Pete Lomax
Leo clarified this as a problem with backward branch circa 3/12/03: Sorry to be a pain in the butt, but I need to be told that there has been no improvement in the last two months on this ;-( .sub _main goto L1 test: $I1 = 1 ret L1: $I2 = 2 call test