On Dec 8, 7:26 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chromatic) wrote: > On Friday 07 December 2007 11:22:10 Klaas-Jan Stol wrote: > > > According to the spec, this is a bug. > > > Now, this isn't a big deal, because the semantics of the program aren't > > changed. The only problem I can imagine is for embedders, but I'm not sure > > if you can poke into parrot registers from a C program. If you can, and you > > expect something to be there because you stuffed it into a PASM style > > register (not symbolic PIR reg), then things go wrong. > > Let it be known that any C program that pokes into Parrot registers is in a > state of sin, and if the program breaks because of it, we shall all point and > laugh. > > -- c
I guess you're right there. There is of course the option of taking the current behavior as "correct", effectively forgetting about this piece of the specification. I can, however, imagine a situation in which someone would want to do manual register allocation (writing Parrot assembly) for certain cases. I'm not sure whether this manual allocation would be disregarded by IMCC which then does its own reg. allocation. kjs
