G'day all.
On Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 09:15:02PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> Would it gain us much implementing De Morgan's theorem in the peephole
> optimiser?
I suspect that most code generators for Parrot will translate LOGOPs
as jumps (i.e. the way most compilers do it), in which case the D
On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 07:04:44PM +, Nick Ing-Simmons wrote:
> Brian Lee Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >From: "Nicholas Clark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 3:15 PM
> >Subject: De Morgan's theorum
> >> I
On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 07:04:44PM +, Nick Ing-Simmons wrote:
> Karnaugh maps are for Humans with visual ways of understanding.
> There is an easy-to-code Algorithm (Quine McLusky?) which does
> the job for computers - it it can handle what would be (projection of)
> an n-Dimensional hyper cub
Brian Lee Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>From: "Nicholas Clark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 3:15 PM
>Subject: De Morgan's theorum
>> I have remembered the name correctly, haven't I?
>Yes. If we were really serio
Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>I have remembered the name correctly, haven't I?
>
>Would it gain us much implementing De Morgan's theorem in the peephole
>optimiser?
It gets even more fun when there are NOTs on the other side as well...
Speaking of which why does NOT have two UNOPs -
From: "Nicholas Clark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 3:15 PM
Subject: De Morgan's theorum
> I have remembered the name correctly, haven't I?
Yes. If we were really serious about optimizing logical expressions,
we would probably want to use K
I have remembered the name correctly, haven't I?
Would it gain us much implementing De Morgan's theorem in the peephole
optimiser?
nick@Bagpuss [nick]$ perl -le 'for $l (0,1) {for $r (0, 1) {print 0+(!$l && !$r) }}'
1
0
0
0
nick@Bagpuss [nick]$ perl -le 'for $l (0,1) {for $r (0, 1) {print 0+!($l
