On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 04:22:54PM -0500, Andy Dougherty wrote: > On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, Steve Fink wrote: > > > It also points to the question "can we make the byte_code be an > > opcode_t* already?" > > I've got it almost completely done on the C end, but I've hit a > discrepancy between packfile.c and docs/parrotbyte.pod on whether the > FLOATVAL constants need to be padded out to an opcode_t boundary. The > docs say yes, but the existing packfile.c doesn't do the padding. > > After that is settled, I may have to visit the perl side that generates > the bytecode. > > Once *that's* settled, I'll have a working patch. If I run out of time to > deal with the FLOATVALs correctly (which is entirely likely), I'll just > submit what I have, which is at least a big step in the right direction.
Ah, ok. I saw your earlier question about that, but didn't make the connection between your real problems of alignment warnings and my whiny ones about having two typecasts that I think look ugly. My (meaningless) vote would be for aligning. But it looks like it might touch quite a bit of code.
