At 07:47 PM 11/6/2001 -0500, Ken Fox wrote:
>Simon Cozens wrote:
> > > some static typing ability, so it should be able
> > > to emit bytecode that doesn't go through the PMC vtable.
> >
> > Yes, but that's fundamentally different from inlining vtable methods
> > in the runops loop, which is what you were originally suggesting.
> > I'm now unsure what you're actually getting at.
>
>If the guts of a vtable implementation are ripped out and given an
>op, isn't that inlining a PMC method? There doesn't seem much point
>in replacing a dynamic vtable offset with a constant vtable offset.
>The method really needs to be inlined -- either by copying the code
>or by calling the implementation directly.
We can't do that. PMCs, even statically typed ones, can change their
vtables as they see fit. Also for this to be at all efficient we'd need to
have all the common variable types vtables be available at compile time.
That's not likely in the general case.
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
