Content deleted Content added
modern CPU call |
some redundancies cannot be eliminated by subroutines |
||
Line 80:
--[[Special:Contributions/68.0.124.33|68.0.124.33]] ([[User talk:68.0.124.33|talk]]) 18:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
== some redundancies cannot be eliminated by subroutines ==
Recently, someone changed the last sentence of
: ''Some early computers such as the [[RCA 1802]] required several instructions to call a subroutine. In the top-level application and in many subroutines, that sequence is repeated over and over again, only the subroutine address changing from one call to the next. Using expensive memory to store the same thing over and over again seems wasteful -- is there any way to store this information exactly once?''
to
: ''Using expensive memory to store the same thing over and over again seemed wasteful; using subroutines allowed the code to be stored once, and called from many different locations.''
I reverted that edit, even though that new last sentence is *usually* true, in isolation -- *usually* redundant sequences of instructions can be shortened by using subroutines.
However, it is not possible to "use subroutines" to eliminate the particular redundant sequences mentioned in the previous sentence.
(Or am I missing something?)
The entire point of the article is that there *is* a way to "store this information exactly once" -- threaded code -- and the various kinds of threading are various ways of implementing that goal.
I suspect that lots of people skim over that last question and misunderstand it -- how can I improve the article by clarifying it?
--[[Special:Contributions/68.0.124.33|68.0.124.33]] ([[User talk:68.0.124.33|talk]]) 14:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
| |||