Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!usc!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!ucbvax!sprite.berkeley.edu!tve
From: tve@sprite.berkeley.edu (Thorsten von Eicken)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: It looks like he's at it again!
Message-ID: <37569@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: 14 Jul 90 23:58:32 GMT
References: <2328@l.cc.purdue.edu> <1990Jul10.072443.4844@cs.UAlberta.CA> <9896@celit.fps.com> <2338@l.cc.purdue.edu> <9911@celit.fps.com> <24358@estelle.udel.EDU> <3060@osc.COM>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: tve@sprite.berkeley.edu (Thorsten von Eicken)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 16

In article <3060@osc.COM> jgk@osc.COM (Joe Keane) writes:
>One real problem with using C for threaded interpreters is that there is no
>way to make an arbitrary jump instruction.  If you could `goto' some address
>expression there would be no problem.
Yep, typically the C program ends up being a hunge switch statement:
	loop:	switch(next_thread) {
		case 0: .... goto loop;
		case 1: .... goto loop;
		}
and one hopes that a) a jump table is produced (and not a binary search
tree) and b) the compiler doesn't dump core with some silly error when
the number of cases reaches into the thousands...

Or can anyone suggest a better method?
----
Thorsten von Eicken (tve@sprite.berkeley.edu)