Here is a potential patch for all of the non documented opcodes.
It is a patch for parrot_assembly.pod
Thanks!
Tanton
-Original Message-
From: Simon Cozens
To: Dan Sugalski
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 9/16/2001 11:12 AM
Subject: Re: Op documentation versus implementation
On Sun, Sep
On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 10:35:10AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> This, for example:
>
> > le_i_ic I
>
> would show in the docs as "le".
I know. I've taken account of that.
--
"I'd crawl over an acre of 'Visual This++' and 'Integrated Development
That' to get to gcc, Emacs, and gdb. Thank you
On Sun, 16 Sep 2001, Simon Cozens wrote:
> In the following list, "I" is an op which is implemented but not documented;
> "D" is an op which is documented but not implemented. I suggest we clean up
> the "I"s first. :)
A lot of those Is are really documented. This, for example:
> le_i_ic I
wo
Simon Cozens sent the following bits through the ether:
> eq_i_ic I
Which reminds me, we currently have:
eq_i_ic4 I I D D
Do we really need the extra D? I'm generating twice as many labels for
little gain. ISTR Dan saying it slipped in somehow. May I suggest it
slips out again ;
In the following list, "I" is an op which is implemented but not documented;
"D" is an op which is documented but not implemented. I suggest we clean up
the "I"s first. :)
call_method D
can D
chopn_s_ic I
clear_eh D
clear_i I
clear_n I
clear_p I
clear_s I
dec_n I
dec_n_nc I
end I
eq_i_ic
