On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 06:01:56PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
>
> Seriously though - is it possible to automate testing how many ops don't
> have tests? That way we could have a test that looked for untested ops, and
> failed if any weren't tested.
> I guess it couldn't easily be very sophistic
>Net result is Good.
>
>[If it wasn't clear, thanks for this, thanks for all the other good work
>you've
>done on parrot]
Thank you.
>Seriously though - is it possible to automate testing how many ops don't
>have tests? That way we could have a test that looked for untested ops, and
>failed if
On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 01:39:30AM -0400, Melvin Smith wrote:
> Filled in some missing holes:
> -Implement PMC inc/dec functions and add ops to engine.
> 'inc P0, 5' is faster than 'set P0, P1, 5' which uses a vtable.
> -Corrected 'inc Nx, Ny' to 'inc Nx, Iy' as per the PDD
> -Added missing 'add N
Filled in some missing holes:
-Implement PMC inc/dec functions and add ops to engine.
'inc P0, 5' is faster than 'set P0, P1, 5' which uses a vtable.
-Corrected 'inc Nx, Ny' to 'inc Nx, Iy' as per the PDD
-Added missing 'add Nx, Ny, Iz' op
Updated mops_p.pasm to use dec op, however, the intent wa
