At 4:10 PM -0400 4/24/02, Simon Glover wrote:
> You're quite right - corrected patch below, plus a simple test case.
Applied, thanks.
--
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski
On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Steve Fink wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2002 at 03:22:57PM -0400, Simon Glover wrote:
> >
> > --- core.ops.oldWed Apr 24 15:07:05 2002
> > +++ core.opsWed Apr 24 15:22:03 2002
> > @@ -470,7 +470,7 @@
> > Sets register $1 to the current address plus the offset $2
> >
On Wed, Apr 24, 2002 at 03:22:57PM -0400, Simon Glover wrote:
>
> --- core.ops.old Wed Apr 24 15:07:05 2002
> +++ core.ops Wed Apr 24 15:22:03 2002
> @@ -470,7 +470,7 @@
> Sets register $1 to the current address plus the offset $2
>
> inline op set_addr(out INT, in INT) {
> - $1 = cur_o
On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> I've added set_addr, which gets the address of a label, like so:
>
> set_addr I3, FOO
>
> and fixed jump and jsr to actually work with absolute addresses.
>
This generates a stack of warnings of the form:
core.ops:473: warning: assignment makes
On Wed, Apr 24, 2002 at 12:49:27PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> I've added set_addr, which gets the address of a label, like so:
>
>set_addr I3, FOO
Awww, you didn't call it lea? Now how am I supposed to feel superior
to all the people who would have no clue what lea means?
> I think callcc
I've added set_addr, which gets the address of a label, like so:
set_addr I3, FOO
and fixed jump and jsr to actually work with absolute addresses.
I think callcc might be coming soon. Be afraid, be very afraid...
--
Dan
---
