On Sat, 15 Sep 2001, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> Gibbs Tanton - tgibbs writes:
> > It seems to me that this might eventually get out of hand...could there
> > possibly be some way to automate the generation of a family of opcodes? For
> > example:
>
> Hear hear, the same thing occurred to me. The way that there are
> separate functions for each argument type is really adding to the
> number of functions. What was the reasoning behind that again, Dan?
The reasoning is that we'd screw our pipleine exacly once per opcode, on
function dispatch, and not two or more times as we check and fiddle with
our arguments.
I agree, though, this is getting out of hand, especially as these are
probably some of the least-used opcodes in the engine for most of the
target languages. (Who'll all use the PMC variants of the opcodes) Let me
think about this some. For right now I'm OK with it happening, but I want
to see what the total opcode function count is reaching for before I'm
willing to commit 'em to stone.
Dan
