Melvin Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > At 06:37 PM 1/7/2004 -0700, Luke Palmer wrote: >>Leopold Toetsch writes: >> > Jeff Clites <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > > On Jan 7, 2004, at 1:46 AM, Leopold Toetsch wrote: >> > >> That part is already answered: create a buffer_like structure. >> > >> *But* again register backing stacks are *not* in the interpreter >> > >> context. >> > >> > > I don't understand what you are getting at. They are not physically >> > > part of Parrot_Interp.ctx, but it holds pointers to them, right? >> > >> > No, they were in the context but aren't any more. >> > >> > > ... So, >> > > they need to be copied when the context is being duplicated. Is that >> > > your point, or are you trying to say that they are not _logically_ part >> > > of the context, or are not supposed to be? >> > >> > Exactly the latter: >> > That was AFAIK a design decision, when Dan did introduce CPS. At this >> > time register backing stacks went out of the continuation or whatelse >> > context - IIRC did Dan commit that to CVS himself. >> >>In which case I feel obliged to contest that decision. The register >>backing stacks are as much a part of the current state as the program >>counter is. > > I tend to agree, but maybe Dan can explain. I looked back at the > CVS history and when I put continuations in, I did originally have > register stacks in the Parrot_Context (although they weren't yet > garbage collected). Dan since reverted that and put them back to > the top level interpreter object.
I also agree. Continuations that don't save the register stacks are about as much use as a chocolate teapot. Maybe it was supposed to be a temporary reversion until GC got sorted.
