Dan~
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 16:24:06 -0500, Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We could, but it would be wrong. Hell, it's arguably wrong for return > continuations to do so, and it wouldn't be unreasonable to argue that > I and N register contents are guaranteed crud and required refetching. > > I'm not particularly concerned with pressure on the register > allocator, honestly -- it's a pleasant add-on, and one we will > continue to do, but it's not strictly necessary. We deal with that > after we get things correct. I can accept this, but I would like to make sure that I understand all of the represcussions of it. Thus you can consider all of the following questions (even though they will be phrased as statements). 1) After a full continuation is taken all of the registers must be considered invalid. 2) After a return continuation is taken, the registers can be trusted. 3) If someone takes a full continuation, all return continuations down the callstack must be promoted. 4) After a function call, some magic needs to happen so that the code knows whether it came back to itself via a return continuation and can trust its registers, or it came back via a full continuation and cannot trust them. Corrections welcome, Matt -- "Computer Science is merely the post-Turing Decline of Formal Systems Theory." -???
