Greg Ewing wrote:
>
> Either way, I don't see any justification to reject the idea of
> having 2-arg opcodes because of speed, which is what the
> original post seemed to be saying. Or maybe I misunderstood.
The latter. I was objecting to Guido's suggestion to time it and
see... I'm not opposed to the idea, although it is likely to slow
things down. But assuming we don't talk about performance, I
don't see a reason for not thinking about a generalized scheme
with variable-size arguments, (cf. classical CPU instruction sets)
that is, instructions which operate on 1-, 2- or 4-byte arguments.
if-you-wanna-fix-it-do-it-like-a-man-<wink>'ly y'rs
--
Vladimir MARANGOZOV | Vladimir.Marangozov@inrialpes.fr
http://sirac.inrialpes.fr/~marangoz | tel:(+33-4)76615277 fax:76615252
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4