On Friday 06 July 2001 10:13 am, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> I should point out that the internal representation of large numbers isn't
> going to be huge strings of ASCII characters--we'll probably be an array
> of 15-bit integers. (As Hong pointed out a while ago, doing that makes
> handling multiplic
Would it make sense / be useful to have also distinct "between
statements" callbacks?
(Which reminds me of a clever hack Abigail once concocted to have code
executed at *block* exits...)
--
$jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/
# There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'.
At 01:00 PM 7/7/2001 -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
>Would it make sense / be useful to have also distinct "between
>statements" callbacks?
Yup. For the debugger if nothing else, and it's a good place to put cleanup
code, so... I expect we'll have an "end of statement" opcode
>(Which reminds m
On Sat, Jul 07, 2001 at 03:07:52PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 01:00 PM 7/7/2001 -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> >Would it make sense / be useful to have also distinct "between
> >statements" callbacks?
>
> Yup. For the debugger if nothing else, and it's a good place to put cleanup
> code,
At 02:23 PM 7/7/2001 -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
>On Sat, Jul 07, 2001 at 03:07:52PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > At 01:00 PM 7/7/2001 -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> > >Would it make sense / be useful to have also distinct "between
> > >statements" callbacks?
> >
> > Yup. For the debugger
On Sat, Jul 07, 2001 at 03:35:04PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 02:23 PM 7/7/2001 -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> >On Sat, Jul 07, 2001 at 03:07:52PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > > At 01:00 PM 7/7/2001 -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> > > >Would it make sense / be useful to have also disti
On Sat, Jul 07, 2001 at 02:49:48PM -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 07, 2001 at 03:35:04PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > At 02:23 PM 7/7/2001 -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> > >On Sat, Jul 07, 2001 at 03:07:52PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > > > At 01:00 PM 7/7/2001 -0500, Jarkko
> For example, in a code coverage tool a callback would be desirable not
> only at the exit (or entry) of a block, or more accurately a linear code
> sequence, but also at various points throughout a conditional, so that
> it is possible to determine not only the truth value of the conditional,
>
On Sat, Jul 07, 2001 at 05:10:03PM -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> BLB = block begin
> BBB = basic block begin
enter
> SE = statement end
nextstate
> BBE = basic block end
> BLE = block end
leave
Not that innovative, really. :) Will basic blocks ever be different
from scopes?
--
"Don't
On Sat, Jul 07, 2001 at 11:23:07PM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 07, 2001 at 05:10:03PM -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> > BLB = block begin
> > BBB = basic block begin
>
> enter
>
> > SE = statement end
>
> nextstate
>
> > BBE = basic block end
> > BLE = block end
>
> leave
>
>
> Not that innovative, really. :) Will basic blocks ever be different
> from scopes?
The Book of the Red Dragon sayeth, p 528 in my copy:
A basic block is a sequence of consecutive statements
in which flow of control enters at the beginning and
leaves at the end without h
On Sat, Jul 07, 2001 at 05:51:00PM -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> A basic block is a sequence of consecutive statements
> in which flow of control enters at the beginning and
> leaves at the end without halt or possibility of
> branching except at the end.
Oh, I know wh
On Sun, Jul 08, 2001 at 12:13:27AM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 07, 2001 at 05:51:00PM -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> > A basic block is a sequence of consecutive statements
> > in which flow of control enters at the beginning and
> > leaves at the end without halt or po
> "JH" == Jarkko Hietaniemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
JH> On Sat, Jul 07, 2001 at 03:07:52PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>> At 01:00 PM 7/7/2001 -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
>> >Would it make sense / be useful to have also distinct "between
>> >statements" callbacks?
>>
>> Yu
> "PJ" == Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
PJ> Some method of attaching a callback function to arbitrary opcodes would
PJ> be very useful.
how would you propose those callbacks be attached without op codes to do
the callback? :)
PJ> For example, in a code coverage tool a callb
> "JH" == Jarkko Hietaniemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
JH> Basic-blocks are a useful unit both for code generation and for code
JH> profiling.
and in optimization. you can compare basic blocks and do loop invariant
detection and related loop optimizations.
a basic block is just a seq
On Sat, Jul 07, 2001 at 05:51:00PM -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> > Not that innovative, really. :) Will basic blocks ever be different
> > from scopes?
>
> The Book of the Red Dragon sayeth, p 528 in my copy:
>
> A basic block is a sequence of consecutive statements
> in which fl
> "RC" == Rocco Caputo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
RC> I suggested something similar in 1997:
RC> The message proposed a tasking package that would dispatch atomic
RC> chunks of code. I eventually wrote one in Perl; it's on the CPAN
RC> as POE. In the Perl version, code atoms are j
18 matches
Mail list logo
