On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 06:37:33PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 03:29 PM 9/14/2001 -0700, Damien Neil wrote:
> >On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 12:39:39AM +0300, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> > > > It will be hard to use one format for both native and portable.
> > >
> > > Not one format, but a set of closely related formats with well-defined
> > > transformations between them.
> >
> >After thinking about implementing this for a bit, I'm becoming
> >dubious about the value of allowing any instance of Parrot to read
> >the native bytecode of every other Parrot out there. Do we really
> >want the non-native byteloader to be capable of reading everything
> >from little-endian 16-bit to 64-bit mixed-endian?
>
> Nope. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the loader pitching a fit if
> it's loaded in bytecode it can't use. Having converters for the common
Yup, as long as we have a portable *header* which everybody can
recognize: "Naah, don't speak that dialect." we are okay.
> cases is reasonable, and having all interpreters being able to manage
> 32-bit big and little endian isn't unreasonable. Anything else can be put
All big-endian users just coughed :-)
> off to an external conversion tool.
...to and from which we can pipe in and out by adding a simple command
line option to the loader tool, so it's (almost) transparent to the user.
--
$jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/
# There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'.
# It is 'dead'. -- Jack Cohen
