Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:At 3:55 PM +0200 4/29/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Another long running discussion: do we need duplicate mmd tables.
Dunno. Don't care, really--I was throwing in two tables as proof-of-concept just to get things going.
As there can be just one entry for a (func, left, right) triple we don't need two tables. This all simplifies ...
Yep. We can look at it later as we need to. The bit test, twiddle, and branch is going to be faster than the dual-table option. Faster still when we can hoist the checking into the op body itself.
BTW: which of these opcodes:
ops/object.ops:=item B<makemmd>(in PMC, in INT) ops/object.ops:=item B<mmdfunc>(in INT, in PMC, in PMC, in PMC) ops/object.ops:=item B<mmddispatch>(out PMC, in INT, in PMC, in PMC) ops/pmc.ops:=item B<mmdvtregister>(in INT, in INT, in INT, in PMC) ops/pmc.ops:=item B<mmdvtfind>(out PMC, in INT, in INT, in INT)
should actually be implemented? Seems to exist some redundancy ;)
Yeah. Now that this is working I'll thump it into shape. -- Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"------------------- Dan Sugalski even samurai [EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even teddy bears get drunk