Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 8:30 AM +0200 4/20/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
>>
>>Why I second table? This just adds duplicate code paths and complexity.
>>One constant table ought to be enough.
> Mainly because I was assuming that we were going to separate the
> float, pmc, and stri
At 8:30 AM +0200 4/20/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The interpreter stuff's simple enough--we teach the ops preprocessor
to handle them the same way that it does string constants, and index
into the PMC constant table. We'll want to put them in a separate
p
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The interpreter stuff's simple enough--we teach the ops preprocessor
> to handle them the same way that it does string constants, and index
> into the PMC constant table. We'll want to put them in a separate
> part of the bytecode file,
Why I second table
At 4:39 PM +0200 4/16/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
While trying to speed up hash lookups [1] I came (again) to the
problem that we are missing true PMC constants. We just have a
special Sub PMC for storing subroutine entries but no general way to
represent a constant PMC item. E.g.:
.const pmc
