"Chip Salzenberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Please revert this change,
Done, along with the docs and test changes relating to it.
and refrain from checking in user-visible or
design-significant changes to the core until I've OK'd them.
Had mentioned this to leo, who said it sounded sane, and after considering
that it wasn't going to break any existing code figured that menat it could
go in. I'll just post patches to the list for approval on any non-trivial
stuff in the future.
If this feature is necessary (which it may be),
I explained why in the bit of my mail you didn't quote. And yes, I could
use non-virtual registers, but then can't use .param to hide away the
calling conventions, which is one reason I chose PIR.
the name "non_volatile" is
misleading to the point of being dead wrong ("volatility" in the C sense
is
not exactly a helpful meme in Parrot land). And it's ugly: negative
options
are usually not unbad. And this one definitely is. (Or is it 'not'? ...
I
hate negative options.)
The name came direclty from the terminology used in the register allocator,
so it was at least consistent even if not desirable. Point taken on the
possible confusion with volatile in the C sense - that hadn't occurred to
me. Better names and/or solutions welcome.
Thanks,
Jonathan
