Re: [ft-devel] Cleaning up ttinterp

[Behdad Esfahbod]

On 14-10-14 11:25 PM, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> 
>> Which other ones do you want documented?  I don't see any value in
>> documenting, eg, these, as they are very self-documenting:
> 
> Mhmm.  Just for consistency, I would like to have
> 
> 
>   /*************************************************************************/
>   /*                                                                       */
>   /* FLIPOFF[]:    Set auto-FLIP to OFF                                    */
>   /* Opcode range: 0x4E                                                    */
>   /* Stack: -->                                                            */
>   /*                                                                       */
>   case 0x4E:  /* FLIPOFF */
>     exc->GS.auto_flip = FALSE;
>     break;
>  
>   /*************************************************************************/
>   /*                                                                       */
>   /* DEBUG[]:      DEBUG.  Unsupported.                                    */
>   /* Opcode range: 0x4F                                                    */
>   /* Stack:        uint32 -->                                              */
>   /*                                                                       */
>   /* Note: The original instruction pops a value from the stack.           */
>   /*                                                                       */
>   case 0x4F:  /* DEBUG */
>     exc->error = FT_THROW( Debug_OpCode );
>     break;
> 
>   ...
> 
> As you can see, the comment
> 
>   Note: The original instruction pops a value from the stack.
> 
> would be lost otherwise.

At the end of the day, the push-pop accounting happens elsewhere.

I don't think I'd have time to fixup the rest soon.  If someone wants to
continue that would be nice.  I personally find the six lines of comments per
four lines of code+whitespace too distracting.

-- 
behdad
http://behdad.org/