On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 09:33:17AM -0800, chromatic wrote:
> On Tuesday 20 January 2009 07:27:53 Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 08:35:26PM -0800, chromatic via RT wrote:
>
> > > I've done most of this in r35787, but we can't get rid of n_neg entirely
> > > until someone updates PCT and NQP not to use it for prefix:- rules. I
> > > poked at that, but couldn't make them work.
> > What's the replacement opcode for n_neg ?
>
> If we remove n_neg, the replacement is likely a two-step operation:
>
> clone $P1, $P2
> neg $P1
Please, not this -- it's terribly inconsistent.
When we got rid of the other n_* opcodes, their non-n_* counterparts
were given the "create a new PMC" semantics that the n_* version had.
We should do the same for n_neg, such that what was previously
n_add $P0, $P1, $P2 # construct $P0 as sum of $P1 and $P2
n_neg $P0, $P1 # construct $P0 as negation of $P1
is now
add $P0, $P1, $P2 # construct $P0 as sum of $P1 and $P2
neg $P0, $P1 # construct $P0 as negation of $P1
Pm
