"Gregor N. Purdy" wrote:
> Michael --
>
> > I had more time to think about it, and I determined how a compute op-code
> > could be efficient.
> >
> > [snip]
>
> You wicked, wicked person! :)
>
> I'd like to see some benchmarks on that one vs. the most efficient
> possible hand-coded separate ops
Michael --
> I had more time to think about it, and I determined how a compute op-code
> could be efficient.
>
> [snip]
You wicked, wicked person! :)
I'd like to see some benchmarks on that one vs. the most efficient
possible hand-coded separate ops for moderate to complex arithmetic...
These s
At 06:59 PM 9/25/2001 -0400, Michael L Maraist wrote:
> > > > I've created a varargs-ish example by making a new op, print_s_v.
> > > > This is pretty rough, and I haven't updated the assembler, but it
> > > > seems to work.
Okay, I've been off the air all day (Sorry 'bout that--cable got nuked)
Michael Maraist wrote:
> > All --
> >
> > > I've created a varargs-ish example by making a new op, print_s_v.
> > > This is pretty rough, and I haven't updated the assembler, but it
> > > seems to work.
>
>
> With var-args, we could produce highly efficient SIMD instructions.
> printf obviously,
> All --
>
> > I've created a varargs-ish example by making a new op, print_s_v.
> > This is pretty rough, and I haven't updated the assembler, but it
> > seems to work.
>
> Um.. I *have* updated the assembler. Its the *dis*assembler I haven't
> updated. This is what happens:
>
> * *_v ops list
All --
> I've created a varargs-ish example by making a new op, print_s_v.
> This is pretty rough, and I haven't updated the assembler, but it
> seems to work.
Um.. I *have* updated the assembler. Its the *dis*assembler I haven't
updated. This is what happens:
* *_v ops list their number of a
All --
I've created a varargs-ish example by making a new op, print_s_v.
This is pretty rough, and I haven't updated the assembler, but it
seems to work.
I'm attaching a patch, and a test program (pt.pasm).
Enjoy!
-- Gregor
___
