Bug fixes (was: "Recursion, need more stack space.")_(re)

Tue, 17 Jun 1997 16:11:04 +0200

Peter Gerwinski wrote:

> Fixed.

:-)

> Fixed.

:-)

> > Another thing I observed when looking at the asm code (see above) was
> > that the i386 backend doesn't seem to know the "push mem" instruction.
>
> [...]
>
> Probably.  However if you want to try yourself on that problem, look
> into the GCC info documentation, and read about "machine descriptions".
> There is something about how to describe each instruction a processor
> has, and maybe it's a trivial error and somebody overlooked this
> instruction.

I looked at i386.h and i386.md, and it seems like there isn't even a way
to push anything but registers and constants... ?-(

> Or else: Loading the memory reference into a register and
> pushing that *might* be faster than a direct push (don't know).

That might be a reason. But I don't know, either. I would suppose not --
why should the extra loading a register be faster? I tried some ways to
measure the actual time (system clock, ps, /proc/..., even gprof), but
they were all terribly inaccurate (+/- 5..10%), so there's no chance to
check which is faster. :-( Anyone knows a way to measure runtime
presicsely (Linux or DJGPP)?

Jan-Jaap van der Heijden wrote:

> unsigned-rel = digit-sequence `.' fractional-part [ `e' scale factor ]
>                | digits-sequence `e' scale factor
> [...]
> I see a simular definition in my Turbo pascal Programmer's Guide, so
> BP should not accept it either.

The BP handbook says (Fig. 2.3, at least in the German version):

unsigned real value (as above)

unsigned numerical value = unsigned integer | unsigned real value

This looks reasonable to me.
-- 
Frank Heckenbach, Erlangen, Germany
heckenb@mi.uni-erlangen.de
Turbo Pascal:   http://www.mi.uni-erlangen.de/~heckenb/programs.htm
Internet links: http://www.mi.uni-erlangen.de/~heckenb/links.htm

Frank Heckenbach (heckenb@mi.uni-erlangen.de)