On Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 11:45:54AM -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote: > I vaguly can see a TIL that uses machine code linkage (real machine code > jumps) that perhaps could use relative addressing as not needing > relocation. But I'm not sure that all architectures support long enough > relative jumps/calls. Specific example where you can't: on ARM, the branch instructions (B and BL) are PC relative, but only have a 24 bit offset field. The address space is (now) 32 bit, so there's parts you can't reach without either calculating addresses (in another register) and MOVing them to the PC, or loading the PC from a branch table in memory. Nicholas Clark
- [not quite an RFC] shared bytecode/optree Benjamin Stuhl
- Re: [not quite an RFC] shared bytecode/optree Simon Cozens
- Re: [not quite an RFC] shared bytecode/optree Chaim Frenkel
- Re: [not quite an RFC] shared bytecode/optree Nicholas Clark
- Re: [not quite an RFC] shared bytecode/optree Dan Sugalski
- Re: [not quite an RFC] shared bytecode/opt... Nicholas Clark
- Re: [not quite an RFC] shared bytecod... Dan Sugalski
- Re: [not quite an RFC] shared byt... Nicholas Clark
- Re: [not quite an RFC] shared bytecode/optree Tom Hughes
- Re: [not quite an RFC] shared bytecode/opt... Nicholas Clark
- Re: [not quite an RFC] shared bytecode/optree Steve Fink
- Re: [not quite an RFC] shared bytecode/optree Nicholas Clark
- Re: [not quite an RFC] shared bytecode/optree Benjamin Stuhl
- Re: [not quite an RFC] shared bytecode/optree Chaim Frenkel