Re:Updating the TO DO list.

["Feng Wang" <wf_cs@yahoo.com>]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset=gb2312, Size: 1437 bytes --]


 --- Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com> µÄÕýÎÄ£º> On Sunday 07 December 2003
1:47 pm, S. Bosscher wrote:
> > > > Implementing ASSIGN probably comes under this category as well.
> > >
> > > This would go into the g77 compatibility department ?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > It's also in the top 5 of my TODO list, as you know, since we
> > also need it to be able to compile SPEC ;-)
> 
> In that case, you might want to consider not using computed gotos (in the C 
> sense) to implement this. I'm of the opinion that it would be better to 
> translate assigned gotos into select with normal gotos. All assigned goto 
> labels must be within the same program unit as the label. It should be 
> fairly easy to build an indexed list of targets, and use the index as the 
> assigned value and the consdition for the switch.
> 
> I haven't actually done any bechmarks, but I would expect the optimizers to 
> translate this into code at least as good as using a [C] computed goto. It 
> avoids problems on machines where sizeof (void*) > KIND(0), and allows us 
> to take advantage of statements like
> GOTO foo (100, 200)
>
I have implemented ASSIGN, assigned goto and the integer variable can be used
in i/o statements. But it is still at test. ASAP I will give the patch.

> Paul
>  

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com