Re: Integer types (was Re: early draft of I/O PDD)

2006-03-08 Thread Leopold Toetsch
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

Re: Integer types (was Re: early draft of I/O PDD)

2006-03-08 Thread Jonathan Worthington
"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

Re: Integer types (was Re: early draft of I/O PDD)

2006-03-07 Thread Leopold Toetsch
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

Re: Integer types (was Re: early draft of I/O PDD)

2006-03-07 Thread Leopold Toetsch
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