And while it's not something that the example code in the article demonstrates, but based on the description of how it confuses the branch detector, it sounds like having multiple BLs without a matching RET for each would also be a problem.
And while it's not something that the example code in the article demonstrates, but based on the description of how it confuses the branch detector, it sounds like having multiple BLs without a matching RET for each would also be a problem.
Also, I'm not sure why you believe that there is any kind of language where this pattern isn't common. Even something like Forth relies heavily on jumping into subroutines and back.
theyr'e so close to what they're in principle.
IMO, C functions are the answer to the problem exposed in the famous quote "goto considered harmful".
assembly is all about GOTOs.. C provides a *structure* way to deal with them without getting bored to day (it all becomes way to much to soon)
but I think (for reasons that I wish I could get into) that in the end, the goto-based assembly code can go up to multiplication, but then with C and their computer-functions one can go beyond exponentiation.
What is there beyond, I can only name by reference but wouldn't say I undesrtand it... which tetration.
so riddle me this: why is 2[op]2=4 for all these operations: addition, multiplication, exponentiation, tetration, pentation!?
imma go keep being insane. thxbai
Structural programming is traditionally considered subroutines + conditionals + loops. In its purest form, it also means no branches other than the ones implicit in this list (i.e. not only no goto, but also no return, no break/continue etc).