On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 07:52:06PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> More to the point, it needs typing exactly twice--once in the .ops file
> that defines the opcode function body, and once in opcode_table. The
> assembler, of course, uses the smaller name.
Three times: And once to name the test ca
At 04:31 PM 9/18/2001 -0700, Dave Storrs wrote:
> So, yes, you'd get 'mul_i_ic_ic', but who cares? It's not really
>that hard to type, and it is absolutely unambiguous. If you want to make
>the interpreter magically deduce the full opcode name from the prefix,
>that's cool, too.
More to
There was a thread on this recently, but I'm not sure what was
resolved. Do we have a standard naming convention for opcodes?
Personally, I'd like to see that we stick with (what I thought was) the
original plan: a nice, simple ruleset that produces long but predictable
names.
- the opc
