Jens Rieks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi, > > does the attached test use the Continuation in a correct way? > The test failes, what am I doing wrong?
Without running it I'm guessing that it prints out something like 456=789 456=456 123=123 And on running it, I see that I'm right. Remember that invoking a continuation does nothing to the existing register state (which is as it should be). So why does it work like this? Letting IMCC handle calling _func saves all the registers and sets P1 to a RetContinuation that points to _func's return point (which is sort of inside the _func() line because of the stuff IMCC does on a function return). _func then sets P16-18 to 4-6 respectively and you make the continuation. Calling _do_something saves all the registers and sets P1 to (essentially) _end _do_something sets P16-18 to 7-9 then jumps through the continuation back to _end. Which prints out '456=789' because P16-18 haven't been restored Then it returns. Returning invokes P1, which is currently set to point to _end. However, returning using .pcc_*_return also restores the registers, which means P16-18 now contain 4-6, so it prints out 456=456 and returns through P1, which now boints back to the original place that _func was called from. Easy. One part of your problem (The state of P16-18) is, therefore, a bug in your program. The other part seems to be a bug in the current implementation of Continuation. A new Continuation should grab the current P1 continuation. If you later invoke that Continuation, it should make the jump and reset P1. Until that's done, all we have is a heavyweight goto.
