Following conversation with Matt Diephouse on #parrot, I realized that
that was pretty confusing. What I meant was that invoke() should
accept parameters and return values as a normal subroutine. This
would probably be done by moving the code that deals with the pc out
of the invoke() method and
That is definitely the most elegant solution. Now, the question is, shouldn't
the invoke() vtable method behave that way in the first place, since passing a
pc address to and returning another pc address from the invoke() method only
makes sense for Sub, Coroutine, and Continuation? In other
On Wednesday 07 March 2007 17:02, Matt Diephouse wrote:
> I don't think that's the right route to take. Exposing the pc to PIR-land
> code seems dangerous and I don't think there's much point. As a PIR user, I
> want the invoke vtable to behave just like any other PIR subroutine.
Agreed.
> This
Alek Storm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The invoke vtable method is supposed to take one argument - the
address of the opcode immediately following the invokecc opcode, so we
can return to it later. It then returns the address of the subroutine
to jump into. The problem is that, in C, the invoke
The invoke vtable method is supposed to take one argument - the
address of the opcode immediately following the invokecc opcode, so we
can return to it later. It then returns the address of the subroutine
to jump into. The problem is that, in C, the invoke method takes and
returns an opcode_t*,
