Re:

Re:

[Paul Brook]

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)

Paul

Re:Updating the TO DO list.

[Feng Wang]

[-- 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