On Fri, 5 Jul 2002, Jerome Vouillon wrote: > On Thu, Jul 04, 2002 at 05:08:25PM -0400, Melvin Smith wrote: > > and would also kill the current JIT design. > > Because it assumes there is only one interpreter ?
No, it assumes that the addresses of the registers won't change during the execution of a given bytecode on a certain interpreter. > > It seems to me it would be just as efficient to keep the interpreter > pointer in a register, instead of hardcoding the address of the > interpreter. > You mean a cpu register, right? If so, of course, but we just don't hardcode the address of the interpreter anywhere, and either way you will need to dereference it, and that's slower, leaves us with 1 less cpu register for the register allocation and requires a total redesing(what is of course the less important thing). Daniel Grunblatt.
