On Mon, 2001-09-10 at 20:52, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 07:25 PM 9/10/2001 -0400, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> >I think Dan mentioned this, but it looks like the suffixes can be derived
> >from the args being passed in. That would greatly simply the assembler to
> >just the function names: set, eq, a
At 07:25 PM 9/10/2001 -0400, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
>I think Dan mentioned this, but it looks like the suffixes can be derived
>from the args being passed in. That would greatly simply the assembler to
>just the function names: set, eq, add, branch.
>
>Were there problems with the scheme, is so
On Monday 10 September 2001 08:58 pm, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >
> >Tayyib.
>
> Is that a good thing or a bad thing? :)
It's an "okay" thing. Literally.
>
> >Handling constants now. Everything else seems to work on the
> >assembler side.
>
> Keen. Constants are odd, since they can happen in a n
At 08:44 PM 9/10/2001 -0400, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
>On Monday 10 September 2001 08:47 pm, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > Because I think backwards from most people, apparently. :)
> >
> > That and generally speaking if there are three args the second is the same
> > type as the first, while the third i
On Monday 10 September 2001 08:47 pm, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Because I think backwards from most people, apparently. :)
>
> That and generally speaking if there are three args the second is the same
> type as the first, while the third is the variant. Generally.
Tayyib. Handling constants now. E
At 08:00 PM 9/10/2001 -0400, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
>On Monday 10 September 2001 06:23 pm, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > At 05:23 PM 9/10/2001 -0500, Brian Wheeler wrote:
> > >First off, here's an inconsistancy I found: In test.pasm
> > >
> > >REDO: eq_i_ic I2, I4, DONE, NEXT
> > >
> > >appears. Sh
"Bryan C. Warnock" wrote:
> On Monday 10 September 2001 06:23 pm, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > When we run out, we repeat the innermost type.
>
> Why are you doing right-to-left instead of left-to-right?
Because it would be harder to repeat the innermost type then? ;)
Most binary ops will take identi
On Monday 10 September 2001 06:23 pm, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 05:23 PM 9/10/2001 -0500, Brian Wheeler wrote:
> >First off, here's an inconsistancy I found: In test.pasm
> >
> >REDO: eq_i_ic I2, I4, DONE, NEXT
> >
> >appears. Shouldn't this be comparing to a constant, not a register?
>
> Nope,
I think Dan mentioned this, but it looks like the suffixes can be derived
from the args being passed in. That would greatly simply the assembler to
just the function names: set, eq, add, branch.
Were there problems with the scheme, is someone working on it, or did it
fall through the cracks?
On Mon, Sep 10, 2001 at 06:23:02PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> That should really be eq_i_ic_ic. (Well, actually there should be only one
> label, and we fall through otherwise. It's a bug in implementation and
> assembly, not opcode name... :)
Patches are... :)
> I was using a trailing c to
At 05:23 PM 9/10/2001 -0500, Brian Wheeler wrote:
>First off, here's an inconsistancy I found: In test.pasm
>
>REDO: eq_i_ic I2, I4, DONE, NEXT
>
>appears. Shouldn't this be comparing to a constant, not a register?
Nope, though if I let you in on the actual secret it's help.
That should real
First off, here's an inconsistancy I found: In test.pasm
REDO: eq_i_ic I2, I4, DONE, NEXT
appears. Shouldn't this be comparing to a constant, not a register? It
became a little obvious when I made a few changes to the
assembler/disassembler to give more details about the data (and to allow
12 matches
Mail list logo
