Re: Labeled NOP

I usually just strip the NOPs before it
goes to the bytecode.

It seems like a comment pseudo-op would be a bit
more trouble than its worth.

Being able to comment any instruction may be useful.

It also may be useful to have an "Instruction Cluster"
which could have a comment, but I wouldn't want to
do this unless there is some other need for the
Cluster.

What does everyone else think?
  1 - Comment NOP
  2 - Comment Pseudo Operation
  3 - Comment Any Instruction
  4 - Comment a Cluster of Instructions

DDP

--- Enver Haase <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Hi DDP,
> 
> Do you need to abuse "NOP"? What about some new
> pseudo-op?
> 
> I don't like the idea of putting things where they
> don't belong IMO.
> 
> If you need comments, fine, why
> don't you introduce some "comment" pseudo-op
> or put the code into the "Instruction" base
> class?
> 
> Greetings,
> Enver
> 
> 
> On Friday, 12. July 2002 20:37, you wrote:
> > I've been poking through my Quilt code for
> > stuff that BCEL might like.
> >
> > I have code for a Labeled NOP.  Not Label as
> > in Jump to, but just a NOP which says something
> > different in the "toString()".
> >
> > Easy way to add comments to instrumented code
> > for when you are debugging.
> >
> > Anyone interested?  Should I just go ahead and
> > check this in?
> >
> > DDP
> >
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:  
> <mailto:[email protected]>
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> <mailto:[email protected]>
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free
http://sbc.yahoo.com