Jonathan Sillito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> this is just the "current continuation". In pasm this could be:
> new P1, .Continuation
> set_addr I3, returnhere
> set P1, I3
> invoke # or invoke_method
> returnhere:
> # etc ...
> With a 'cc' variant the common case is simp
Jonathan Sillito wrote:
[snip]
> -inline op invoke(in PMC) {
+inline op call(in PMC) {
>opcode_t *dest;
> - PMC * p = $1;
> -
> - dest = (opcode_t *)p->vtable->invoke(interpreter, p, expr NEXT());
> -
> + PMC * sub = $1;
> + dest = (opcode_t *)p->vtable->invoke(interpreter, sub, expr NEXT()
Jonathan Sillito wrote:
[snip]
> -inline op invoke(in PMC) {
+inline op call(in PMC) {
>opcode_t *dest;
> - PMC * p = $1;
> -
> - dest = (opcode_t *)p->vtable->invoke(interpreter, p, expr NEXT());
> -
> + PMC * sub = $1;
> + dest = (opcode_t *)p->vtable->invoke(interpreter, sub, expr NEXT()
Hey, thanks for the comments.
So you suggest leaving as the op as invoke? I don't mind, I just think we
should be consistent in our naming; what about having the following four
ops:
- invoke
- invokecc
- invoke_method
- invokecc_method
You also wondered about the need for the 'cc' varian
Jonathan Sillito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1. some adding and renaming in core.ops, which gives the following ops:
>- call()
>- call(in PMC)
Suboptimal. We will get a name clash in imcc. (Imcc has call as an alias
for bsr)
> 2. adds pmc access macros to register.h (as suggested by Mit
# New Ticket Created by Jonathan Sillito
# Please include the string: [perl #22549]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=22549 >
This patch does:
1. some adding and renaming in core.ops, which gives the following
