"Gregor N. Purdy" wrote:
> Michael --
>
> > I had more time to think about it, and I determined how a compute op-code
> > could be efficient.
> >
> > [snip]
>
> You wicked, wicked person! :)
>
> I'd like to see some benchmarks on that one vs. the most efficient
> possible hand-coded separate ops
Michael --
> I had more time to think about it, and I determined how a compute op-code
> could be efficient.
>
> [snip]
You wicked, wicked person! :)
I'd like to see some benchmarks on that one vs. the most efficient
possible hand-coded separate ops for moderate to complex arithmetic...
These s
At 06:59 PM 9/25/2001 -0400, Michael L Maraist wrote:
> > > > I've created a varargs-ish example by making a new op, print_s_v.
> > > > This is pretty rough, and I haven't updated the assembler, but it
> > > > seems to work.
Okay, I've been off the air all day (Sorry 'bout that--cable got nuked)
Michael Maraist wrote:
> > All --
> >
> > > I've created a varargs-ish example by making a new op, print_s_v.
> > > This is pretty rough, and I haven't updated the assembler, but it
> > > seems to work.
>
>
> With var-args, we could produce highly efficient SIMD instructions.
> printf obviously,
> All --
>
> > I've created a varargs-ish example by making a new op, print_s_v.
> > This is pretty rough, and I haven't updated the assembler, but it
> > seems to work.
>
> Um.. I *have* updated the assembler. Its the *dis*assembler I haven't
> updated. This is what happens:
>
> * *_v ops list
All --
> I've created a varargs-ish example by making a new op, print_s_v.
> This is pretty rough, and I haven't updated the assembler, but it
> seems to work.
Um.. I *have* updated the assembler. Its the *dis*assembler I haven't
updated. This is what happens:
* *_v ops list their number of a
All --
I've created a varargs-ish example by making a new op, print_s_v.
This is pretty rough, and I haven't updated the assembler, but it
seems to work.
I'm attaching a patch, and a test program (pt.pasm).
Enjoy!
-- Gregor
___
> >
> >I have a minor issue with a proliferation of createArray. In perl5 we
> >used the Stack for just about everything minus physically setting @x =
> >(1,2,3). The creation of a dynamic array is a memory hog.
>
> Less of a hog in many ways than using a stack. Worth the times when it's not.
I
At 01:03 PM 9/24/2001 -0400, Michael Maraist wrote:
> > > is it possible the ops to handle variable number of arguments, what I
> have
> > > in mind :
> > >
> > > print I1,",",N2,"\n"
> >
> > This should be done by create ar
> > is it possible the ops to handle variable number of arguments, what I have
> > in mind :
> >
> > print I1,",",N2,"\n"
>
> This should be done by create array opcode plus print array opcode.
>
> [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
I have a minor issue wi
> is it possible the ops to handle variable number of arguments, what I have
> in mind :
>
> print I1,",",N2,"\n"
This should be done by create array opcode plus print array opcode.
[1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
The create array opcode takes "n" top of stack (or &q
On Sat, 22 Sep 2001, raptor wrote:
> hi,
>
> is it possible the ops to handle variable number of arguments, what I have
> in mind :
>
> print I1,",",N2,"\n"
This could probably be done as a macro when the assembler has macro
support in the future
At 07:09 PM 9/22/2001 +0300, raptor wrote:
>hi,
>
>is it possible the ops to handle variable number of arguments
No.
Which isn't to say that if you do:
new P0, list
push P0, "A "
push P0, "multipart "
push P0, "string"
push P0, "\
hi,
is it possible the ops to handle variable number of arguments, what I have
in mind :
print I1,",",N2,"\n"
cheers
=
iVAN
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
=
14 matches
Mail list logo
