G'day all.
On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 05:28:12PM -0300, Daniel Grunblatt wrote:
> Add me to the list, because I'm writting the jit optimizer and ran into
> the same problem, we must add some metadata otherwise I will end up
> hard-coding all the information deep into the optimizer and that is a Bad
On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Andrew J Bromage wrote:
> G'day all.
>
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 12:44:49AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> > Ah. Hmmm. Well, we're already attaching some metadata to ops in a
> > different way--that's what the op and inline keywords are doing. For
> > metadata that use param
G'day all.
On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 12:44:49AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Ah. Hmmm. Well, we're already attaching some metadata to ops in a
> different way--that's what the op and inline keywords are doing. For
> metadata that use parameters I can see a scheme like you're
> proposing, though
At 1:59 PM +1000 4/19/02, Andrew J Bromage wrote:
> > Interesting. Could you give an example of how an op with metadata
>would look?
>
>Sure. Here's some of my experimenting with what is the right kind
>of metadata to attach. Brief glossary:
Ah. Hmmm. Well, we're already attaching some metada
G'day all.
On Thu, Apr 18, 2002 at 11:31:32PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Interesting. Could you give an example of how an op with metadata would look?
Sure. Here's some of my experimenting with what is the right kind
of metadata to attach. Brief glossary:
- CANNOT_FALL_THROUGH mean
At 1:04 PM +1000 4/19/02, Andrew J Bromage wrote:
>This patch allows op-writers to store optional metadata to be
>associated along with an op. Very simple key-value stuff at the
>moment; may get fancier later.
Interesting. Could you give an example of how an op with metadata would look?
--
