On Mar 8, 2006, at 22:55, Jonathan Worthington wrote:
The described mapping doesn't have any PBC portability issues AFAIK.
If 'L' is mapping to 'I' or not is chosen at runtime.
Wouldn't the required re-writing blow away the wins we get through
mmap'ing in bytecode files?
There isn't any re
"Leopold Toetsch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yup, and I really, really don't like the idea of making our bytecode
format non-portable. Part of the point of having a VM is portability,
right?
The described mapping doesn't have any PBC portability issues AFAIK. If
'L' is mapping to 'I' or not
On Mar 7, 2006, at 23:44, Jonathan Worthington wrote:
The register mapping rules would be something like:
- Lx occupies registers I(2x, 2x+1) - this is compile time,
that is 'L1' prevents 'I2' and 'I3' from being assigned by the
register allocator
- the runtime mapping isn't portable due t
On Mar 7, 2006, at 23:44, Jonathan Worthington wrote:
- if you write PASM, overlapping Ix/Ly may cause warnings or errors,
but could be used in a non-portable way, if you know what you are
doing on a specific platform.
You still didn't address my question with these points, though.
mul L