At 11:28 AM 9/30/2001 -0400, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
>On Sunday 30 September 2001 11:14 am, Gregor N. Purdy wrote:
> > The stuff I'm about to check in that allows NVs to move to the constant
> > table is set up to also allow IVs to live there, too. I haven't made
> > the assembler and the ops do that yet, but it is possible. I thought we
> > were going to have sizeof(IV) == sizeof(OP), and handle larger integers
> > via PMCs. But if we are going to have the possiblity that sizeof(IV) !=
> > sizeof(OP), then we probably do need to move IV constants out of the
> > bytecode stream.
>
>Well, we recently went to all the trouble to decouple opcodes from IVs - I
>assume for a reason. Do we want to undo that, or move them into the
>constant table?
Nope.
>If you re-couple the sizes, then you're pretty much committing to 64-bit
>opcodes, since you'll invariably want 64-bit IVs on platforms that support
>it.
We guarantee integer constants that are no bigger than 32 bits can be
embedded in the opcode stream. Since opcode_t is at least 32 bits this is OK.
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
