mdr | MarkDown Renderer for the terminal

The problem is that the specific version of @emotion/react used in the template, is not working anymore.

To solve the problem I went to the package.json and changed the version from 11.4.1 to 11.5.0 manually. Seems that the 11.5.0 solves the problem with the template used.

We can use Array.reduce(), to get the required result.

We'd add each item to a map object (accumulator), using the message value as the key, then use Object.values() to return our desired result array:

Let's start with an analogy.  The way programs in imperative-style languages work is to break necessary work into statements, and those statements are then interconnected by variables.

In this analogy, imagine you want to compute k = 2i+j, but break the computation into two operations/statements/cycles: first compute 2i, then +j — but where to store the intermediate result of 2i?  The answer is in some internal & intermediate storage, and certainly not in any program variable, as wiping one of those out would be bad for the program.  So, we might compute t0 = 2i; then k = t0 + j; where t0 is extra, hidden, internal storage and thus, does not conflict with any variables.

Breaking an instruction's execution into multiple cycles necessarily operates in terms of such intermediate results as output from one cycle and input to another, the same way that program statements are interconnected, sometimes by temporary variables.

The temporary registers involved in a multi-cycle or pipelined processor are for internal & intermediate results that have to do with the progress of the instruction in the prior cycle and how that that progress is communicated to the next cycle, which is as state.

Dynamically speaking, there is a lot of state involved in a single cycle processor: control signals, decoded values, sign extended values, alu results, all above and beyond the architectural register file.  But that state does not need to be stored anywhere, since it simply propagates across the processor during the cycle — and in the end the architectural registers (reg file & PC) are updated, so the next instruction can start with just the architecturally visible state.

However, when we split execution into piece parts as with multi-cycle or pipelined processors, that extra, internal intermediate state that would have propagated across the single cycle processor needs to be captured for the next cycle to start with.

For example, in an add R-Type instruction, extraction of the rs & rt & rd register numbers from the instruction as well as register read of rs & rt is usually done in a decode cycle.  Later phases need those register values, and if they had to go back to the register file to get them, that would cost some valuable time in the cycle.  Those rs & rt values needed to reread the register file could also obtained by re-decoding the instruction, but if you follow that logic back to instruction fetch, you've basically got a processor that does all the work from scratch in the last cycle — might as well have a single cycle processor.

So, these intermediate cycle or stage registers are for holding the results that the next cycle needs, so that the next cycle can get started with its work at the very start of the cycle, without repeating work done by previous cycles.

The target register number (sometimes rd and sometimes rt) is decoded in a decode cycle/stage and then later used in a write back cycle/stage.  This is yet another example of the intermediate state (the number for the target register) that needs to be forwarded from one cycle to another in order for that instruction's execution to proceed in later cycles without redoing work previously completed.

In a multicycle processor, if an instruction register is needed, it would likely be in between fetch and decode, and it might be further forwarded to other cycles/stages, but more likely that certain control signals and instruction fields are individually forwarded rather than the whole instruction being forwarded and available for reinterpretation.

Since .user_search_dataframe() takes a string and returns a frame based on a partial match you could make up a long list of usernames, loop it, and then concatenate the frames together.

Example:

MyEntity should not implement Comparable. It is the fields, by which you are going to sort the list of MyEntity objects, that needs to be Comparable. For example, if you are sorting by the field user, which is a UserEntity, then UserEntity is the thing that needs to be comparable, not MyEntity.

The lambda's job should just be to check that the fields are indeed Comparable, and throw an exception if they are not.

Since you don't know the types of the fields at compile time, however, you'd have to use a raw type here. The comparing call would look like this:

Have you tried combining these arrays before rendering them? If you were able to combine both objects before creating that list, that would make your life easier. Another thing I noticed is you're using filter, when find might be a better option to return a single value rather than an array. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Array/find

Think about what happens if the current instruction is a load or store: does anything need to happen after the MDR? If so, how is the CPU going to remember what it's in the middle of doing if it doesn't keep track of that somehow.

Whether that requires the original instruction bits the whole time or not depends on the design.

A CPU that needs to do a lot of decoding (e.g. a CISC with a compact variable-length instruction set, like original 8086) may not keep the actual instruction itself around, but instead just some decode results. For example, actual 8086 decoded incrementally, scanning through prefixes one byte at a time until reaching the opcode. And modern x86 decodes to uops which it sends down the pipeline; the original machine-code bytes aren't needed.

But CPUs like MIPS were specifically designed so parts of the instruction word could be used directly as internal control signals. Still, it's not always necessary to keep the whole instruction around in one piece.

It might make more sense to look at CIR as being the input latches of the decoding process that produces the necessary internal control signals, or sequence of microcode depending on the design. Having a truly physical CIR separate from that is ok if you don't mind redoing decoding at any step you need to consult it to figure out what step to do next.

The error is in the last line. The columns represented in the ct are selected in this line. Instead of

If you open Form2 with ShowDialog, Form1 still remains open and will continue as soon as Form2 is closed.

So, use this code to close Form2.