> "DS" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DS> At 01:54 PM 9/9/2001 -0700, Wizard wrote:
>> Just curious, would it be practical to design-in a boolean-specific
>> register/set of registers? There are many processors (PICC, 8051, etc.)
>> which would likely be better able utili
> "BL" == Bart Lateur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
BL> On Sat, 08 Sep 2001 13:02:04 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>>> Uri mentioned exp(x) = e^x, but I think if you are going to include
>>> log2, log10, log, etc, you should also include ln.
>>
>> Added.
BL> Er... aren't ln and log s
> "DS" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DS> Yeah, I can't think of a good reason for a noop. We might have one
DS> anyway, though, just in case one comes along anyway.
in a hardware cpu they were commonly used to fill an instruction slot to
keep a pipeline filled, or to follow
> "DS" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DS> That's a good question. Now that we have a list of bitwise ops, we
DS> can decide how they work. What happens when you
DS> rotate/shift/bit-or a float? Or a bitint/bigfloat? Or a string?
DS> Important questions, and we can hammer
> "DS" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DS> Names should be in all lower case, and short but not truncated. Try to
DS> avoid underscores, but shift_l and shift_r are OK. (I'll get to the
DS> underscore issues later)
two suggestions. first in the parrot asm PDD, codify that
On Sat, 08 Sep 2001 13:02:04 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>>Uri mentioned exp(x) = e^x, but I think if you are going to include
>>log2, log10, log, etc, you should also include ln.
>
>Added.
Er... aren't ln and log synonyms?
--
Bart.
Jeremy Howard:
# Uri Guttman wrote:
# > > "BS" == Benjamin Stuhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
# >
# > >> Can anyone think of things I've forgotten? It's been a
# while since
# > >> I've done numeric work.
# >
# > BS> ln, asinh, acosh, atanh2?
# >
# > dan mentioned log (base anything) but
At 01:54 PM 9/9/2001 -0700, Wizard wrote:
>Just curious, would it be practical to design-in a boolean-specific
>register/set of registers? There are many processors (PICC, 8051, etc.)
>which would likely be better able utilize their own optimizations if this
>were the case ( bitset, testbit, high,
Just curious, would it be practical to design-in a boolean-specific
register/set of registers? There are many processors (PICC, 8051, etc.)
which would likely be better able utilize their own optimizations if this
were the case ( bitset, testbit, high, low, etc.). It could be done without
the regi
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 07:43 PM 9/8/2001 -0700, Wizard wrote:
> >Questions regarding Bitwise operators:
> >
> > > =item rol tx, ty, tz *
> >...
> > > =item ror tx, ty, tz *
> >
> >Are these with or without carry?
>
> That's a good question. Now that we have a list of bitwi
At 03:51 PM 9/8/2001 -0700, Matthew Cline wrote:
>On Saturday 08 September 2001 09:00 am, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> > Okay, I'm whipping together the "fancy math" section of the interpreter
> > assembly language. I've got:
> >
> > sin, cos, tan : Plain ones
> > asin, acos, atan : arc-wh
On 9/9/01 11:47 AM, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>> http://www.allegedlyfunny.com/opcodes.html
>> I think DWIM might be a bit much, but HCF (Halt, Catch Fire) might be
>> fun :)
>
> Far too many of those are tempting... :)
Hey, if the PPC can have EIEIO, I see no reason Parrot can't sneak a few fun
ones
At 09:51 PM 9/8/2001 -0700, Dave Storrs wrote:
>On Sat, 8 Sep 2001, Uri Guttman wrote:
>
> > > "BW" == Brian Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > BW> =item eqv tx, ty, tz *
> >
> > BW> Bitwise Equivalence all bits in y with z and store the result in
> > BW> register x.
> >
> > that
At 07:43 PM 9/8/2001 -0700, Wizard wrote:
>Questions regarding Bitwise operators:
>
> > =item rol tx, ty, tz *
>...
> > =item ror tx, ty, tz *
>
>Are these with or without carry?
That's a good question. Now that we have a list of bitwise ops, we can
decide how they work. What happens when you ro
At 10:19 PM 9/8/2001 -0500, Brian Wheeler wrote:
>Out of curiosity, will there be a NOP instruction? I guess we really
>wouldn't need one, since things like ADD I0,I0,0 is effectively a NOP
>and the Dan has indicated he wanted to keep the bytecode read-only, so
>there'd be no need for it after o
At 11:24 PM 9/8/2001 -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
> > "BW" == Brian Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
> BW> =item and tx, ty, tz *
>
> BW> Bitwise And all bits in y with z and store the result in register x.
> BW> (x = y & z)
>
>just a minor thought on parrot assembler argument order.
At 11:03 PM 9/8/2001 -0500, Brian Wheeler wrote:
>On Sat, 2001-09-08 at 22:24, Uri Guttman wrote:
> > > "BW" == Brian Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Looking at the opcodes as presented in the PDD, they're hauntingly like
>the alpha codes (maybe Dan's favorite isn't the vax, but the alpha
> > BW> Roll y left z bits and store the result in x.
> > BW> [what are the valid values for z?]
> >
> > isn't that rotate left? rotate should require z to be the word size or
> > less. or we can define it to work modulo the word size. which reminds
> > me, is there going to be a simple langu
On Sun, Sep 09, 2001 at 02:33:17PM +1000, Jeremy Howard wrote:
> Uri Guttman wrote:
> > > "BS" == Benjamin Stuhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > >> Can anyone think of things I've forgotten? It's been a while since
> > >> I've done numeric work.
> >
> > BS> ln, asinh, acosh, atanh2?
"Jeremy Howard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Uri Guttman wrote:
> > > "BS" == Benjamin Stuhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > >> Can anyone think of things I've forgotten? It's been a while since
> > >> I've done numeric work.
> >
> > BS> ln, asinh, acosh, atanh2?
> >
> > dan mentio
Uri Guttman wrote:
> > "BS" == Benjamin Stuhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> Can anyone think of things I've forgotten? It's been a while since
> >> I've done numeric work.
>
> BS> ln, asinh, acosh, atanh2?
>
> dan mentioned log (base anything) but i don't recall ln. and definitely
>
21 matches
Mail list logo
