Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ... We could probably do something very clever to abstract it,
> like load all the constants into a reserved, dynamically-sized set of
> registers starting at [INSP]32.
That doesn't work. Registers are accessed per interpreter/thread and now
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 10:17 PM +0200 10/29/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> >That leads again to my warnocked proposal to just toss all variants
> >of opcodes that have constants too. With all possible PMC constants
> >in the constants table, we get another (estimated) times two
At 10:17 PM +0200 10/29/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 4:36 PM +0200 10/29/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Well, they are implemented, at least partly. Sub PMCs are in the
constant table. The funny C "opcode" is actually a ...
set_p_pc op.
... with the small difference, that at com
Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 4:36 PM +0200 10/29/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Well, they are implemented, at least partly. Sub PMCs are in the
constant table. The funny C "opcode" is actually a ...
set_p_pc op.
... with the small difference, that at compile time, the integer
argument is a label (offset)
At 4:36 PM +0200 10/29/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
get_sub Px, foo # find the PMC with label "foo" in constants
Yeah, but I think I've a better approach. Instead of doing this,
let's just get PMC constants implemented.
Well, they are implemented, at le
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> get_sub Px, foo # find the PMC with label "foo" in constants
> Yeah, but I think I've a better approach. Instead of doing this,
> let's just get PMC constants implemented.
Well, they are implemented, at least partly. Sub PMCs are in the
constant t
At 2:46 PM +0200 10/29/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
When PIR code has a function call syntax:
foo(i, j)
the created code has currently (amongst other) a line:
newsub Px, .Sub, foo
where the label "foo" is a relative branch offset.
This is suboptimal for several reasons:
[snip]
So I think, we shou
When PIR code has a function call syntax:
foo(i, j)
the created code has currently (amongst other) a line:
newsub Px, .Sub, foo
where the label "foo" is a relative branch offset.
This is suboptimal for several reasons:
- it creates a new PMC for every call albeit in 99.99% of cases the PMC
con
