Sean O'Rourke wrote: > On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Leopold Toetsch wrote: > > Well, Sean's not quite sure about that. I agree with Melvin that using > PASM syntax for IMCC could make it harder to target other platforms.
I don't know Melvin's plan for other targets - but - as parrot is very special - I doubt, imcc would be useable for different targets. > ... -- and mixed infix/prefix syntax is ugly. imcc's "if expr label" or "var = ar[i]" is more readable, but, if pasm can be handled transparently, you don't have to mix. >>- infix notation (and imcc internals) are currently limited to >> 4 registers per instruction, so what about: You did snip my keyed example ... > Agreed -- we need to change this to conform to parrot/opcode.h's > PARROT_MAX_ARGS. .... which AFAIK can take arbitrary arguments in the key, separated by ";". I did try: set S0, P0[I0;I1;I2] .... PC=100; OP=135 (set_s_p_kc); ARGS=(S0="10", P0=0x8059180, [I0=0;I1=0;I2=0]) so the 3 array indices leave in one key. But currently 10 registers ought to be enough, (like 640 Kb ;-) > /s leo
