OpenEuphoria

GOTO examples in EUPHORIA´s source

• Posted by Shawn Pringle <shawn.pringle at ?mail.c?m> Jun 05, 2008
• 753 views

I see some examples in EUPHORIA'S source code using goto.  There are some 
macros and I am glad we do not have those in euphoria containing goto.


#define thread() goto loop_top
#define thread2() {pc += 2; goto loop_top;}
#define thread4() {pc += 4; goto loop_top;}
#define thread5() {pc += 5; goto loop_top;}
#define threadpc3() {pc = (int *)pc[3]; goto loop_top;}
#define inc3pc() pc += 3

All of these goto examples can be replaced with 'continue'.  I suppose the
reason to eliminate goto is to encourage keywords like continue and exit.

Then we see a place where goto is used a lot to jump into error handling code
from multiple places:

case L_ASSIGN_OP_SUBS:  /* var[subs] op= expr */
		top = *(object_ptr)pc[1];
	      aos:  
		if (!IS_SEQUENCE(top)) {  //optimize better
		    goto subsfail;
		}
		obj_ptr = (object_ptr)SEQ_PTR(top);/* the sequence */

later

		top = *obj_ptr;
		if (!IS_SEQUENCE(top)) { 
		    goto asubsfail;
		}
		top = (object)SEQ_PTR(top);

... later..

*((object_ptr)top) = (object)obj_ptr; // storing a C pointer
		    thread5();
		}
		goto asubsfail;

Arguably you could use small function calls instead of gotos here.  I am told
there is a big cost in calling a function.  Sometimes I put things into smaller
functions just so that I can add convenience functions or I realise I can avoid
retyping things over and over.  If I had goto and I cared about so much
about speed I might use it all over the place, saving labels in a simulated 
runtime stack and using globals for data passing.  If I use functions for call 
backs and everything else with goto in the way mentioned would I gain speed?  If
so, wouldn't it make sense for EUPHORIA to compile the source in a way that 
simulates these gotos for recursive function calls?  Isn't it all simulated
anyway?

So, the differences are, in functions variables are local to the routine's
call.  That is, The function can call itself without clobbering its own 
local variables.  You can use call_back() to allow calls from C or any language
that can call a C function.  

Suppose a procedure defined inside a routine would work exactly like gosub.  
There would be no parameter passing but you could modify the routine's
variables.
Wouldn't this be nearly as fast as goto?  It seems that these kinds of
procedures defined in routines would allow for gosub style programming.  The
code pointer is the only thing that gets saved.  You can disallow recursive
calls
and allow only one call to a gosub at a time to avoid a stack structure.  If
the user needs those things he can use a file scope defined routine.

Shawn Pringle