Home > Archive > Cobol > September 2004 > Re: "Goto statement considered superfluous" (was: If you were inventing C)
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Re: "Goto statement considered superfluous" (was: If you were inventing C)
|
|
| docdwarf@panix.com 2004-09-28, 3:55 am |
| In article <959cl097b32oeu9s680oib9p7tpqnitvd0@4ax.com>,
Robert Wagner <robert@wagner.net.yourmammaharvests> wrote:
>On 25 Sep 2004 20:22:04 -0400, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
[snip]
[color=darkred]
>
>It's the same on other architectures such as Intel, Power, SPARC, etc.
It is still unclear, Mr Wagner... are you saying that since all machines
are 64-bit architectures then the differences between all
machine-instructions are null... or that the example I chose to
demonstrate how machine-instruction efficiencies might need to be
considered is, as was clearly labelled at the start, 'trivial'?
DD
| |
| Robert Wagner 2004-09-28, 3:55 am |
| On 26 Sep 2004 08:22:18 -0400, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>In article <959cl097b32oeu9s680oib9p7tpqnitvd0@4ax.com>,
>Robert Wagner <robert@wagner.net.yourmammaharvests> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>
>It is still unclear, Mr Wagner... are you saying that since all machines
>are 64-bit architectures then the differences between all
>machine-instructions are null...
I didn't say that, although it happens to be true. Generally, all
instructions run in one clock, unless they operate on multiple words.
> or that the example I chose to
>demonstrate how machine-instruction efficiencies might need to be
>considered is, as was clearly labelled at the start, 'trivial'?
That's it. The example you chose doesn't support your point .. not
even trivially.
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2004-09-28, 3:55 am |
| In article <07mdl0he2olqprif8btd40o0ubv7efavqg@4ax.com>,
Robert Wagner <robert@wagner.net.yourmammaharvests> wrote:
>On 26 Sep 2004 08:22:18 -0400, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
>I didn't say that, although it happens to be true. Generally, all
>instructions run in one clock, unless they operate on multiple words.
Not being familiar with 'all instructions' on all possible platforms I can
neither agree nor disagree with this assertion.
>
>
>That's it. The example you chose doesn't support your point .. not
>even trivially.
If the flaw is in the admittedly trivial example, Mr Wagner, and not the
principle upon which the example is based, then perhaps a person of
knowledge, sound principles and generosity of spirit might examine the
depths and ignore the trivial... the question remains, it seems, open.
DD
|
|
|
|
|