home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
/ NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #26 / NN_1992_26.iso / spool / comp / arch / 10479 < prev    next >
Encoding:
Internet Message Format  |  1992-11-08  |  1.3 KB
  1. Xref: sparky comp.arch:10479 comp.lang.misc:3533
  2. Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!news.byu.edu!hamblin.math.byu.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!caen!sdd.hp.com!cs.utexas.edu!natinst.com!news.dell.com!fisher.com!turtle.fisher.com!ferris
  3. From: ferris@turtle.fisher.com
  4. Newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.lang.misc
  5. Subject: <None>
  6. Message-ID: <1992Nov6.111616.109@turtle.fisher.com>
  7. Date: 6 Nov 92 11:16:15 CDT
  8. References: <BwJ4uz.1rA@rice.edu> <1992Oct23.004313.29196@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg> <1992Oct29.153514.22927@yrloc.ipsa.reuter.COM> <BwxsF6.3DF@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
  9. Organization: Fisher Controls International, Austin, TX
  10. Lines: 31
  11.  
  12. Since this discussion is posted in comp.architecture shouldn't we be
  13. discussing the possibility of a goto-less object code?
  14.  
  15. I believe that it is possible at the micro-code level but not at the
  16. machine level. However, I can envision something like:
  17.  
  18. SET FLAG TO VALUE
  19. INTerrupt
  20. ...
  21. ...
  22. :INTerrupt address
  23. DO CASE
  24.    CASE FLAG 1
  25.         PROCESS
  26.    CASE FLAG 2
  27.         PROCESS
  28.    CASE FLAG N
  29. ...
  30.  
  31. The INTerrupt command could be used to cause case-type processing
  32. based on a flag setting.
  33.  
  34. Now, can anyone suggest a reason for implementing a goto-less processor?
  35. Isn't the reason for goto-less code to eliminate the programmer's
  36. tendency to create indecipherable code? Why would anyone in their
  37. right mind implement a goto-less CPU?
  38.  
  39. Jeff
  40.  
  41.  
  42.  
  43.