Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watdaisy.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!watdaisy!ndiamond From: ndiamond@watdaisy.UUCP (Norman Diamond) Newsgroups: net.lang Subject: Re: re: IF KICK-BACK GREATER THAN... Message-ID: <6839@watdaisy.UUCP> Date: Wed, 2-Jan-85 13:20:07 EST Article-I.D.: watdaisy.6839 Posted: Wed Jan 2 13:20:07 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 3-Jan-85 01:08:11 EST References: <797@pucc-i.UUCP> <26400020@uiucdcs.UUCP> Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 34 > I believe the set-expression you want for: 10 < KICK-BACK < 100 should be > kickback in [11..99], not kick_back in [10..100]. [I agree -- N.D.] > Also, as the following extraction of VAX-code demonstrates, the set-expression > appears to be the less tedious of the two alternatives, to wit: > > /* set-expression */ /* conditional-expression */ > > clrl r0 movl _kickback,r0 > subl2 r2,r1 movl $10,r1 > cmpl r1,r3 cmpl r0,r1 > jgtru 1f jleq L9999 > jbc r1,(r4),1f movl $1,r0 > incl r0 jbr L9998 > 1: L9999: > tstl r0 clrl r0 > jeql L7 L9998: > moval _output,-12(fp) movl _kickback,r1 > (* is the code for the *) cvtbl $100,r2 > (* following set-expr. *) cmpl r1,r2 > if kickback in [11..99] then ... [this column of code] > writeln(kickback); ... [truncated by N.D.] The code shown for the set-expression doesn't seem to involve 11 and 99. What are the original contents of R1 and R2? I think that not all of the relevant generated code is shown. -- Norman Diamond UUCP: {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra|clyde}!watmath!watdaisy!ndiamond CSNET: ndiamond%watdaisy@waterloo.csnet ARPA: ndiamond%watdaisy%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa "Opinions are those of the keyboard, and do not reflect on me or higher-ups."