Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!think!barmar
From: barmar@think.COM (Barry Margolin)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Open coding (was Re: Complex Instructions)
Message-ID: <39698@think.UUCP>
Date: 25 Apr 89 16:23:16 GMT
References: <57252@yale-celray.yale.UUCP> <4101@tolerant.UUCP> <134@dg.dg.com> <39670@think.UUCP> <1260@l.cc.purdue.edu>
Sender: news@think.UUCP
Reply-To: barmar@kulla.think.com.UUCP (Barry Margolin)
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 20

In article <1260@l.cc.purdue.edu> cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
}In article <39670@think.UUCP>, I write:
}>   Maybe we're talking
}> about different things (it sounds like you're talking about
}> user-defined inline functions).
}I know of no provision for this in Fortran, Pascal, Algol, or APL.  Every
}implementation of C which I have used does not even have a sensible assembler
}procedure.  I would like to see user-defined inline OPERATIONS as part of
}any general-purpose language.

Since we ARE obviously talking about different things, I'm getting out
of the discussion.  My posting was about open coding, and you seem to
be asking about user-defined inline procedures and escapes to
assembler.  I don't have a good answer to your question.

Barry Margolin
Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com
{uunet,harvard}!think!barmar