James Mastros wrote: > In byteswapping the bytecode ... > > I propose that we make INTVAL and opcode_t the same size, and gaurrenteed > to be able to hold a void*.
It sounds like you want portable byte code. Is that a goal? It seems like we can have either mmap'able byte code or portable byte code, but not both. Personally, I'd rather have portable byte code because memory is cheap and self-modifiying byte code opens up a lot of optimization potential. I know others disagree. Are we looking at two different byte code formats? Dan? - Ken
