Juergen Boemmels wrote:
Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
struct Chunk { opcode_t type; opcode_t version; opcode_t size; void data[]; };will this ever compile?
It's similar to "opcode_t *data". If size == 0, no data follow in byte stream. byte_code_{un,}pack is implemented like this now.
I agree with the "roughly" bit, but I'd suggest ensuring that you put
in enough bits to get data[] 64 bit aligned.
opcode_t will be 64 bit on this architectures.
PBC segments and above data are aligned on 4*sizeof(opcode_t) boundary.
The typecode must be extendible.
If it does follow above conventions not. Only a unique name would be necessary. But, yes in the long run.
And if there are two interpreters in the same process (isn't that the supposed way of multiple threads) each one has to compile the same code again?
No: interpreter->code of both points to the same data and JIT code already lives in the packfile now.
And if we make C a parrot supported language we can even build parrot with parrot?
And if it runs, yes.
bye boe
leo
