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
12 matches
Mail list logo
