On Jun-16, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 8:24 PM +0200 6/16/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm wondering if it'd be useful enough to be worthwhile to have
non-flowcontrol min/max ops. Something like:
min P1, P2, P3
max P1, P2, P3
Which cmp
I'm wondering if it'd be useful enough to be worthwhile to have
non-flowcontrol min/max ops. Something like:
min P1, P2, P3
max P1, P2, P3
where P1 ends up with the lesser (or greater) of P2 and P3.
On the one hand this'd make some of the code I'm generating now
simpler, but on the other
Dan Sugalski wrote:
min P1, P2, P3
max P1, P2, P3
Opinions?
Subroutine, man, subroutine. NCI if you need it to be fast.
--
Brent Dax Royal-Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Perl and Parrot hacker
Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
At 10:08 AM -0700 6/16/04, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
min P1, P2, P3
max P1, P2, P3
Opinions?
Subroutine, man, subroutine. NCI if you need it to be fast.
Feh on a subroutine--it's three or four ops with a few branches.
Which was the point--it eliminates the
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm wondering if it'd be useful enough to be worthwhile to have
non-flowcontrol min/max ops. Something like:
min P1, P2, P3
max P1, P2, P3
Which cmp operation of the three we have? I smell opcode bloat.
On the one hand this'd make some of the
