On Fri, 2003-05-30 at 19:42, Mitchell N Charity wrote:
> Eeep.
{snip snip}
> So...
>
> I suggest existing register access be replaced with a new macro set
> #define REG_INT(x) interpreter->ctx.int_reg.registers[x]
> #define REG_NUM(x) interpreter->ctx.num_reg.registers[x]
> #define REG_STR(x) interpreter->ctx.string_reg.registers[x]
> #define REG_PMC(x) interpreter->ctx.pmc_reg.registers[x]
>
> (Then jit/i386/jit_emit.h and build_nativecall.pl can be synced by
> flopping FOO_REG's to REG_FOO's.)
>
> I suggest REG_PMC(1) is clearer than PMC_REG(1),
> as it places the most variable information together.
> Like P1, or CLUTTER_P(1), rather than P_CLUTTER(1).
>
> At a minimum, it would be nice for some register access macro set to
> be globally available.
>
> While
> REG_PMC(0) = method;
> REG_PMC(2) = $1;
> REG_STR(0) = $2;
> is not as clear as
> P0 = method;
> P2 = $1;
> S0 = $2;
> it sure beats
> interpreter->ctx.pmc_reg.registers[0] = method;
> interpreter->ctx.pmc_reg.registers[2] = $1;
> interpreter->ctx.string_reg.registers[0] = $2;
>
> No?
No.
Ha ha, just kidding, of course. I'm all for it, but given my record
today, that might be an imminent sign of its rejection.
--
Bryan C. Warnock
bwarnock@(gtemail.net|raba.com)
