In message
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Keys are either constant key structs, constant integers, string
> registers, or integer registers. Encoding shouldn't be any different
> than any other constant or register. Jeff's got an opcode
> This would only automate the generation of large amounts of code, not get rid
> of the large amount of code being generated. Once again, my complaint here is that
> the L2 cache would buckle under the weight of a dozen PMCs each defining a few dozen
> recursive accessors. The performance gain of
On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Angel Faus wrote:
> In my opinion, there are actually two different things to dicuss:
>
> - keyed opcodes
> - keyed methods on the PMC vtable
>
...
>
> Keyed opcodes can stay in the interest of code density.
>
> >
> > No. Keyed access for all methods stays. You're for
Sunday 21 July 2002 21:34, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> No. They are not. You're missing the important case where the data
> structure is inherently and intrinsically multidimensional.
>
>my int Array @foo : dimensions(3);
>@foo[1;2;3] = 12;
>
> Or whatever the syntax is in perl to declare a 3
Dan,
Thanks for being a good sport. I'm not in a hurry here - don't feel like you
need to be.
> >> I propose that keyed access do exactly eight things:
> >>
> >> * fetch a PMC using a key
> >> * fetch a integer using a key
> >> * fetch a number using a key
> >> * fetch a string using a k
At 7:06 PM +0100 7/21/02, Tom Hughes wrote:
>In message <20020721174150$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Scott Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I propose that keyed access do exactly eight things:
>>
>> * fetch a PMC using a key
>> * fetch a integer using a key
>> * fetch a number using a
At 10:26 AM -0700 7/21/02, Scott Walters wrote:
>It is pretty clear that no one is happy with the keyed system. It
>doesn't do what people want (eg, let you use arrays as keys).
>While keys are supposed to be fast, constructing them takes a series
>of instructions.
>
>Perspective:
>
>Keys are not