Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ... The answer isn't to reduce the op count. The
> answer's to make the cores manageable, which doesn't require tossing
> ops out.
It seems that it was a bit unclear what my patches did. The confusion
seem to arise from the usage of the term opcode. I use
At 9:20 AM +0100 11/24/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Too many opcodes
Bluntly, no. Not too many opcodes.
This has been an ongoing issue. I'm well aware that you want to to
trim down the opcode count for ages and replace a lot of them with
functions with a lightweight calling convention. Well, we alr
Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 09:20:42AM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
>> 2) Opcode variants with mixed arguments
>>
>> Honestly
>>
>>acos Nx, Iy
>>
>> and tons of other such opcodes are just overkill.
> Heck, why do we even have transcendental maths ops
On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 09:20:42AM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> 2) Opcode variants with mixed arguments
>
> Honestly
>
>acos Nx, Iy
>
> and tons of other such opcodes are just overkill. If I want a numeric
> result, I just pass in a numeric argument. If people really want
> that, imcc ha
