Angel Faus wrote: > Hi Leo, > > >>This should be - from my (imcc) POV - reflected by these IN/OUT >>settings: >> >>op set(in PMC, in INT) >>op set(in PMC, in STR) >>op set(in PMC, in NUM) >>op set(out PMC, in PMC) # ok, $1 points to $2 now >> >># P[i] = x >>op set(in PMC, in intkey, in x) >># P[KEY] = x >>op set(in PMC, in KEY, in x) >># p[KEY] = P[KEY] >>op set(in PMC, in KEY, in PMC, in KEY)
> Shouldn't all this PMC be "inout"? They depend on the previous value > of the PMC, but they also modify it. inout would be ok for me. set Px, Py is probably the only instruction, where $1 is OUT. (ev. assign, but I didn't look at this close enough). > This probably doesn't affect imcc now, but it might be useful in the > future. It does affect imcc (CVS as well as my upcoming patch). Currently there is a würgaround (workaround) in the code. Have a look at e.g. iMOVE(). > -angel leo
