home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky comp.arch:10480 comp.lang.misc:3534
- Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!news.byu.edu!hamblin.math.byu.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!natinst.com!news.dell.com!fisher.com!turtle.fisher.com!ferris
- From: ferris@turtle.fisher.com
- Newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.lang.misc
- Subject: Re: A Challenge to GOTO-LESS
- Message-ID: <1992Nov6.111938.110@turtle.fisher.com>
- Date: 6 Nov 92 11:19:38 CDT
- 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> <1992Nov6.111616.109@turtle.fisher.com>
- Organization: Fisher Controls International, Austin, TX
- Lines: 34
-
- For some reason this posted without a comment line. This is a response
- to the "A CHALLENGE FOR GOTO-LESS..."
-
- > Since this discussion is posted in comp.architecture shouldn't we be
- > discussing the possibility of a goto-less object code?
- >
- > I believe that it is possible at the micro-code level but not at the
- > machine level. However, I can envision something like:
- >
- > SET FLAG TO VALUE
- > INTerrupt
- > ...
- > ...
- > :INTerrupt address
- > DO CASE
- > CASE FLAG 1
- > PROCESS
- > CASE FLAG 2
- > PROCESS
- > CASE FLAG N
- > ...
- >
- > The INTerrupt command could be used to cause case-type processing
- > based on a flag setting.
- >
- > Now, can anyone suggest a reason for implementing a goto-less processor?
- > Isn't the reason for goto-less code to eliminate the programmer's
- > tendency to create indecipherable code? Why would anyone in their
- > right mind implement a goto-less CPU?
- >
- > Jeff
- >
- >
- >
-