On Nov 04, Daniel Grunblatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> took up a keyboard and banged out
>
>
> On Sun, 4 Nov 2001, Michael Fischer wrote:
>
> > On Nov 04, Daniel Grunblatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> took up a keyboard and
>banged out
> > > I really suggest that you do a do_op.c and a do_op.h and that you call
> > > goto_op_dispatch directly from runops_core.c (from runops_t0p0b0_core),
> > > because if I'm not wrong you are breaking -t ,-p and -b options.
> >
> > Erm, I'm not sure how, as each of them does run in some form of
> > while(pc). Please enlighten me here.
>
> Yes, but everyone call DO_OP and expect it to run just one opcode, not
> entering a loop, right?
Um, that would be the case on the function and switch cases, where
the break's cause us to fall out of the switch.
In the goto case, we spin. And perhaps I am broken there. End
really wants to return, not just set the pc, but I hadn't thought
of a clever way to do that corner case, and wanted to see what
the behavior would be without it. I suspect I need it.
Hmm, hand hacking that didn't help...
> > Why not have a look and see if you can't merge your goto system into
> > mine for getting it to be workable from Configure?
> >
>
> Sure, yes, but let's firts decide if we really want my goto system because
> I don't know if the speed ups are like I thought they were, can anyone try
> it on Windows/other plataforms/operating systems?
Indeed. Much experimenting to be done all around.
Michael
--
Michael Fischer 7.5 million years to run
[EMAIL PROTECTED] printf "%d", 0x2a;
-- deep thought
