At 09:55 PM 1/12/2004 +0100, Stéphane Payrard wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 03:16:50PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Which brings up a question. What's the difference between .local and .sym?
> --
Currently, there is none. So I went for the shortest:
grep -n -e LOCAL imcc.l
imcc.l:181:".sym"
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Which brings up a question. What's the difference between .local and .sym?
They are equivalent for plain code. *But* C<.local> was already used for
local labels inside macros of assembler.pl - so is it now - and it was
used for declaring variables in imcc
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 03:16:50PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 7:30 PM +0100 1/12/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> >Stéphane Payrard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Example:
> >
> >>.sym scalar var
> >>new var, .Perlint # the instance is a substype of C
> >
> > .sym pmc var
> >
> >is as g
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Which brings up a question. What's the difference between .local and .sym?
I was hoping someone would ask this.
Harry
At 7:30 PM +0100 1/12/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Stéphane Payrard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Example:
.sym scalar var
new var, .Perlint # the instance is a substype of C
.sym pmc var
is as good. There isn't any difference. Its even simpler for compiler
writers.
Which brings up a quest
Stéphane Payrard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Example:
>.sym scalar var
>new var, .Perlint # the instance is a substype of C
.sym pmc var
is as good. There isn't any difference. Its even simpler for compiler
writers.
> My understanding is that we already have that. C types
> define m
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 10:05:51AM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> Stéphane Payrard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Abstract pmcs should appear in core_pmcs.h and pmctypes.pasm
> > because one needs them as base pmcs so as to declare
> > pseudo-registers. This is a prerequisite to add pmc type check
Stéphane Payrard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Abstract pmcs should appear in core_pmcs.h and pmctypes.pasm
> because one needs them as base pmcs so as to declare
> pseudo-registers. This is a prerequisite to add pmc type checking
> to imcc.
I don't think that we need the type names of abstract PMC
Abstract pmcs should appear in core_pmcs.h and pmctypes.pasm
because one needs them as base pmcs so as to declare
pseudo-registers. This is a prerequisite to add pmc type checking
to imcc. Working on a patch to fix that, I got some questions to
be answered.
Unlike other pmcs, abstract pmcs have na
