At 05:08 PM 9/13/2001 -0400, Buddha Buck wrote:
>At 04:55 PM 09-13-2001 -0400, Andy Dougherty wrote:
>>In perl.perl6.internals, you wrote:
>>
>> >The attached patch makes all bytecode have a type of int32_t rather than
>> >IV; it also contains the other stuff I needed to get the tests running
>> >on my Alpha (modifications to config.h.in and register.c).
>>
>>I think this is a bad idea. There simply is no guarantee that there's
>>a native integral type with 32 bits. And having an int32_t type that
>>*isn't* 32-bits is just plain confusing. Just ask anyone who's gotten
>>burnt by perl5's I32, which has the exact same problem.
>
>Well, since bytecode is defined to be 32-bit, it makes sense to define it
>as an int32_t type and have the definition of an int32_t be platform-specific.
Yeah, but it isn't, that's the problem.
I was thinking more that we'd have a type OP for opcodes, for example.
#typedef'd to int, or long, or int32_t, but conceptually standalone so we
could change it if need be. (The possibility still exists that we might
shrink to 16 bit opcodes...)
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
