At 10:06 AM 9/13/2001 +0100, Philip Kendall wrote:
>On Wed, Sep 12, 2001 at 10:03:55PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > At 05:06 PM 9/12/2001 -0700, Hong Zhang wrote:
> >
> > >I think we should use int32_t instead of IV for all code related
> > >data.
> >
> > Absolutely. Using an IV was a quick answer to get things working--a first
> > draft if you will. It needs rewriting so all the ops are I32 and the
> > floating point constants are N64s.
>
>If we are going to keep on doing fancy stuff with pointer arithmetic (eg
>the Alloc_Aligned/CHUNK_BASE stuff), I think we're also going to need an
>integer type which is guaranteed to be the same width as a pointer, so
>we can freely typecast between the two.
IVs generally should be.
>Also, if we've got a system with 64 bit IVs, are the arguments to Parrot
>opcodes going to be 32 or 64 bit? If 32 bit, is there going to be any
>way of loading a 64 bit constant?
We may have a way to embed larger constants into the constant area rather
than in the bytecode stream itself. I don't think we're going to have
inline 64-bit constants, though.
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
