[Question][Hw2] Semantics of other instructions seems to clash.
#419
Replies: 1 comment
-
|
You can ignore unsupported syntax. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
I think there is a clash of semantics for instructions of unsupported instructions in HW2, namely the following two.
# SmaLLVM Interpretersays that "You can ignore the other LLVM instructions marked asraise Unsupported,..."4. Format of Input Programssays thatAll the other instructions are considered to be nop..From the first description, it seems that we should leave the
raise Unsupportedas is. The second description makes it seems that we should treat such instructions asSkipas we have seen in class, and I was unsure which one we should take.I assume that due to the constraint that "input programs are always syntactically valid.", we really don't have to worry about such clash during tests, but I still wanted to ask as I was wondering what would be the better choice in other situations.
Thanks in advance!
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions