>>>>> "SC" == Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
SC> On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 05:18:15PM -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
>> basically the emitted machine code for TIL is very simplified C
>> routine calls and their argument setup and return. all the routine calls
>> are to perl ops with just the minimal stack glue code in between them.
SC> OK, you're re-inventing .NET. Why?
more likely .NET is reinventing TIL which is a very old technology. i am
not the only one who supports this idea so don't pin it all on me. it is
a good compromise between pure interpretation and pure compilation.
as for ziggy's comments on the overload of builtins issue there could be
a simple dispatch table used instead of direct calls. it would be fast
with just an indexed lookup based on the op code id. then you can
overload the entry with a user supplied sub. there could be a sub table
for every execution thread which solves that problem as well. now
making sure that op ids can fit into a table is an issue especially if
hundreds of subs are added in user code. but this can be worked out.
so the TIL generated code would still to parameter setup, then an
indirect function call and then result handling. it should still be
faster than an interpreter and simpler to generate than fully compiled
code.
uri
--
Uri Guttman --------- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------- http://www.sysarch.com
SYStems ARCHitecture, Software Engineering, Perl, Internet, UNIX Consulting
The Perl Books Page ----------- http://www.sysarch.com/cgi-bin/perl_books
The Best Search Engine on the Net ---------- http://www.northernlight.com
