At 6:55 PM +0200 9/2/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
We still have a lot of unhooked ops w/o a definite opcode number.
These are mainly the non-branching compare opcodes currently located
in ops/experimental.ops.
These opcodes have some limited usefullness for e.g.
bool_val = (a b) (c d)
i.e.
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 6:55 PM +0200 9/2/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
- do we keep these opcodes?
Yes.
Ok.
If yes some permutations are missing.
Yeah. I'd as soon leave them out until we need them.
Well, the asymmetry makes it harder for compilers to emit proper code.
Is
On Sep-06, Jens Rieks wrote:
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
So first:
- do we keep these opcodes?
If yes some permutations are missing.
- if no,? we should either not include experimental.ops in the default
opcode set or move it to dynops.
I have not used them yet, but I think that they can
We still have a lot of unhooked ops w/o a definite opcode number. These
are mainly the non-branching compare opcodes currently located in
ops/experimental.ops.
These opcodes have some limited usefullness for e.g.
bool_val = (a b) (c d)
i.e. for expressions that do not branch on the compare
