From: Johan K. <joh...@id...> - 2000-09-19 10:19:38
|
Hi, I'm back Search for the tag "SERIOUS BUG" and you know all about it. Bye, for now... |
From: Klaus H. <kla...@rt...> - 2000-09-19 12:19:13
|
Hi, I think every rule (e.g. 197, 198, 199) that removes an instruction after a label will fail in some cases. The best way to solve this problem is to temporary suppress such a rule if the label is referenced by code outside the peep hole. Therefore a new if-condition must be added. A similar solution is described in the dragen book... Klaus |
From: Johan K. <joh...@id...> - 2000-09-19 13:24:04
|
> I think every rule (e.g. 197, 198, 199) that removes an instruction after a > label will fail in some cases. The best way to solve this problem is to > temporary suppress such a rule if the label is referenced by code outside the > peep hole. Therefore a new if-condition must be added. > A similar solution is described in the dragen book... I don't know who wrote this dragon book, but I am almost sure it also says that such a rule should NEVER be used. A compiler is suppost to generate correct working code, not just sufficient but wrong code. |