Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 20:30:39 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Johnny Billquist <bqt@Update.UU.SE>
To: milov@uwlax.edu
cc: edgee@cyberpass.net, pups@minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au
Subject: Re: Floating Point-How Important
In-Reply-To: <9804221533.AA08770@toes.its.uwlax.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.VUL.3.93.980423202847.18607J-100000@Zeke.Update.UU.SE>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-pups@minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 22 Apr 1998, Milo Velimirovic wrote:

> >Assuming Bob's summary is complete, my program could classify
> >instructions as either double, single or no operand based on the
> >range they fall in. No operand cases could be discarded.  Single and
> >double operands would have to be further decoded to see if they use
> >any of the PC addressing modes (immediate, absolute, relative, and
> >relative deferred) and the appropriate number of words skipped.
> >
> >Would this work?  Have I forgotten anything important?
> 
> Yes, other registers can be used with indexed addressing modes (6 and 7)
> and these too would place additional words in the instruction stream.

Won't matter. The principle would work. The idea was to look at the
addressing mode, which tells if there is another word with an argument,
and they look the same no matter what register are used.

Yes, Ed, this will make a better approach.

	Johnny

Johnny Billquist                  || "I'm on a bus
                                  ||  on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt@update.uu.se           ||  Reading murder books
pdp is alive!                     ||  tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol