brianc@cognos.uucp (Brian Campbell) (08/06/87)
Am I missing something obvious here?
xorb ah,ah
cbw
Is it really necessary to zero ah before sign extending al? This
sort of code seems to get generated for things like *p = *q (p, q are
both char *). Since this is pretty common, is there any reason why the
optimizer doesn't notice the unnecesary (?) xor and remove it?
Also, I'd like to put in another vote for some documentation on the
flags to the various c compiler passes.
One more thing while I'm here... I spent a few hours last night
getting less to work under minix (pretty trivial actually). One of the
problems that took me a while to determine a solution to was the lack of
a clear to eol sequence under minix (it turns out a clear to end of
screen will do, the way less uses it). Are there any plans for extending
the terminal handler to incorporate "ce" and other sequences? A simpler
clear screen sequence might be nice...
--
Brian Campbell uucp: decvax!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!brianc
Cognos Incorporated mail: 3755 Riverside Drive, Ottawa, Ontario, K1G 3N3
(613) 738-1440 fido: sysop@163/8