I meant not restoring the CC, but relying it on not being changed by the
instructions between the condition code setter and the B(R)C(R). There
is a significant exposure to inadvertently undermining the logic with
future maintenance. Caps are probably required in the comments (as long
as all other comments are lower case).
Gary Weinhold
Senior Application Architect
DATAKINETICS | Data Performance & Optimization
Phone +1.613.523.5500 x216
Email: weinh...@dkl.com
Visit us online at www.DKL.com
E-mail Notification: The information contained in this email and any attachments is confidential and may be subject to copyright or other intellectual property protection. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to use or disclose this information, and we request that you notify us by reply mail or telephone and delete the original message from your mail system.
__________
On 2015-10-15 15:59, Robert A. Rosenberg wrote:
At 13:38 -0400 on 10/15/2015, Gary Weinhold wrote about Re: Moves and
others:
I can't remember the specifics, but back when I could read VM source
code, I recall CP modules passed condition codes back when returning
to the caller using some scheme like you describe. I thought it was
cool and esoteric, but now I realize that even testing a condition
code a couple of instructions after it's set needs strong
documentation so I'll remember what I was doing when I look at my
code a couple months later.
That is what the comment field on instructions are for. When it is
time to restore the CC before checking/using it, explain what you are
doing in a comment.
