Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 11:58 PM +0200 8/15/03, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
>>What is that? I'd tossed all (hopefully) of the math, boolean, and
>>logical keyed vtables,
>>Ah yes - docu needs updating, but Dan didn't put his "yes agreed" under
>>these patches, yet ;-)
> Right, because I don't agree.
I know that. But nothing has changed WRT multi-keyed ops since this
thread:
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 11:12:18 +0200
From: Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: P6I <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [RFC] 2. Proposal for _keyed opcodes
You write there: "I don't mind the opcode explosion, honestly."
How long does it take to compile core_ops_cg.c with 60 times the opcode,
we now have?
What aboud cache locality?
What about final executable size (with speciall respect to embbeding
Parrot in some small devices)?
The only difference of my proposal and the mulit-keyed variants are 3
additional opcodes, which doesn't really count - we have a really fast
opcode dispatch:
/* OP _p_k _p_k_p_k =>
* set py, p_k
* set pz, p_k
* OP px, py, pz
* assign _p_k, px
*/
(Slightly updated version of the orig proposal)
> Dan
leo
