home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.arch
- Path: sparky!uunet!ornl!rsg1.er.usgs.gov!news.cs.indiana.edu!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!hrubin
- From: hrubin@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
- Subject: Re: gotos in hardware
- Message-ID: <BxsBKH.Hxq@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
- Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department
- References: <1992Nov6.111616.109@turtle.fisher.com> <BxCLAu.5AF@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> <141549@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>
- Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 01:17:03 GMT
- Lines: 24
-
- In article <141549@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> casey@gauss.llnl.gov (Casey Leedom) writes:
- >| From: hrubin@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
-
- >| A goto, with no intervening possible exits, should be handled in such a
- >| way that that the hardware starts getting the code at the new location
- >| early, so that there are no unnecessary delays. It could even issue
- >| instructions from that "new" code in the same way it does from current
- >| code. The "structured" approach, where unconditional transfers are not
- >| the rule, prevents this type of optimization.
-
- > Just because you don't see many explicit "goto"'s in ``structured
- >programs'' doesn't mean they aren't there. They're usually hidden as
- >``structured goto's'': e.g. "break" and "continue" in C.
-
- I am quite aware of that. But there are machines whose architecture
- does not have separate fast transfers, but instead have them as part
- of a conditional transfer instruction with no condition bits used.
-
- My message was posted to comp.arch only; I raised no software questions.
- --
- Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
- Phone: (317)494-6054
- hrubin@snap.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)
- {purdue,pur-ee}!snap.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
-