Death to multi-way runops cores

To be honest, I'm a bit unhappy about all this:

  runops_t0p0b1_core,
  runops_t0p1b0_core,
  runops_t0p1b1_core,
  runops_t1p0b0_core,
  runops_t1p0b1_core,
  runops_t1p1b0_core,
  runops_t1p1b1_core

My feeling is that you get a fast runops core for normal use and
a slow runops core which does everything else. If you're in 
"debugging mode", then an extra check to see whether or not you're
profiling doesn't make much difference. As such, unless I hear a
*very* good argument for duplicating and maintaining essentially
the same code 7 times over, I'm going to rip out the slow cores and
replace them with one single one. 

-- 
"How should I know if it works?  That's what beta testers are for.  I only
coded it."
(Attributed to Linus Torvalds, somewhere in a posting)

• Death to multi-way runops cores by Simon Cozens
• Re: Death to multi-way runops cores by Gregor N. Purdy