On Thu Jan 18 11:42:41 2024 +0000, Giovanni Mascellani wrote:
Right now you're also supposed to update the DCL_TEMPS instruction (and add it if it's not there). Since @cmccarthy is having the same problem in !564 too and I'm going to need it soon too, I think we could handle this problem in a uniform way:
- either we add a preliminary pass that adds `dcl_temps 0` if there is
no DCL_TEMPS around (and then everybody increments it just like we do for `temp_count`);
- or we add a preliminary pass that removes any DCL_TEMPS around and
then rely just on `temp_count`; this would require some minor changes to the validator. I would vote for the second one.
I also vote for the second option. Redundant copies of the same info are best avoided.