Attached are trivial comment fixes for two files.
As it so happens, it strikes me that CONCAT Sx, Sx isn't
three-register code. I'd be much happier with CONCAT Sx, Sx, Sx - it'd
make it easier to generate code for and would fit in with the rest of
the instructions. Comments?
Leon
ps should i start filing bug reports in rt if my assembler bugs
aren't being fixed? ;-)
--
Leon Brocard.............................http://www.astray.com/
Nanoware...............................http://www.nanoware.org/
... Have you seen Quasimoto? I have a hunch he's back!
Index: basic_opcodes.ops
===================================================================
RCS file: /home/perlcvs/parrot/basic_opcodes.ops,v
retrieving revision 1.21
diff -u -u -r1.21 basic_opcodes.ops
--- basic_opcodes.ops 2001/09/19 21:32:29 1.21
+++ basic_opcodes.ops 2001/09/20 09:01:17
@@ -452,6 +452,7 @@
STR_REG(P1) = s;
}
+/* CONCAT Sx, Sx */
AUTO_OP concat_s {
STRING *s = string_concat(STR_REG(P1), STR_REG(P2), 1);
STR_REG(P1) = s;
Index: process_opfunc.pl
===================================================================
RCS file: /home/perlcvs/parrot/process_opfunc.pl,v
retrieving revision 1.12
diff -u -u -r1.12 process_opfunc.pl
--- process_opfunc.pl 2001/09/19 21:32:29 1.12
+++ process_opfunc.pl 2001/09/20 09:01:32
@@ -19,11 +19,11 @@
#
# ... body of function ...
#
-# RETVAL = x;
+# RETURN(x);
#
# }
#
-# There may be more than one RETVAL
+# There may be more than one RETURN
#
# The functions have the magic variables Pnnn for parameters 1 through
# X. (Parameter 0 is the opcode number) Types for each, and the size
