I usually just strip the NOPs before it goes to the bytecode. It seems like a comment pseudo-op would be a bit more trouble than its worth.
Being able to comment any instruction may be useful. It also may be useful to have an "Instruction Cluster" which could have a comment, but I wouldn't want to do this unless there is some other need for the Cluster. What does everyone else think? 1 - Comment NOP 2 - Comment Pseudo Operation 3 - Comment Any Instruction 4 - Comment a Cluster of Instructions DDP --- Enver Haase <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi DDP, > > Do you need to abuse "NOP"? What about some new > pseudo-op? > > I don't like the idea of putting things where they > don't belong IMO. > > If you need comments, fine, why > don't you introduce some "comment" pseudo-op > or put the code into the "Instruction" base > class? > > Greetings, > Enver > > > On Friday, 12. July 2002 20:37, you wrote: > > I've been poking through my Quilt code for > > stuff that BCEL might like. > > > > I have code for a Labeled NOP. Not Label as > > in Jump to, but just a NOP which says something > > different in the "toString()". > > > > Easy way to add comments to instrumented code > > for when you are debugging. > > > > Anyone interested? Should I just go ahead and > > check this in? > > > > DDP > > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free http://sbc.yahoo.com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
