home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!wupost!spool.mu.edu!olivea!charnel!sifon!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!poly-vlsi!shannon!dak
- From: dak@shannon (Pierre Baillargeon)
- Newsgroups: rec.games.corewar
- Subject: Re: Outlaw ImpRings? - There's a better way
- Message-ID: <1993Jan2.170839.4347@vlsi.polymtl.ca>
- Date: 2 Jan 93 17:08:39 GMT
- References: <1hukq1INNroe@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU>
- Sender: news@vlsi.polymtl.ca (USENET News System)
- Organization: Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
- Lines: 32
- X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
-
- Daniel Starr (starr-daniel@yale.edu) wrote:
- : In article <78903@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt7804b@prism.gatech.EDU (Wayne Edward Sheppard) writes:
- : > [deleted]
- : >
- : >If an impring had more points, wouldn't it be easier to kill?
- : >
- : Nope. The nifty thing about an impring, after all, is that just like
- : a classic imp, each instruction prepares the very next one that executes.
- : As a result, no matter how many points there are, only one -- the one
- : about to execute -- is vulnerable to bombing/mutation at any given time.
- :
- : [deleted]
-
- Well, a ring with more points has more vulnerable point and move slower.
- Also, since most ring a multiprocessed (!?) one way to to throw them off-balance
- is to increment the B operand (unfortunalty, normal hill preclude '>'). This
- make the last processes bomb the firsts which eventually die. Finally, more
- processes means a longer vulnerable time at the beginning.
-
- A smaller launch method exist, but it is slower:
-
- spl 1
- spl 1
- spl inc
- go jmp @0,imp
- inc add #2667,go
- dat #0,#0
- imp mov 0,2667
-
- --
- "Pis Bourassa qui est toujours la. Y'a pas d'remede contre le SIDA" - French B
- ...........................................................dak@info.polymtl.ca
-