On Monday 01 October 2001 07:16 pm, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >Well, we recently went to all the trouble to decouple opcodes from IVs -
> > I assume for a reason. Do we want to undo that, or move them into the
> > constant table?
>
> Nope.
To one, the other, or both?
>
> >If you re-couple the sizes
At 11:28 AM 9/30/2001 -0400, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
>On Sunday 30 September 2001 11:14 am, Gregor N. Purdy wrote:
> > The stuff I'm about to check in that allows NVs to move to the constant
> > table is set up to also allow IVs to live there, too. I haven't made
> > the assembler and the ops do t
handle 32
or 64 bit integers.
-Original Message-
From: Bryan C. Warnock
To: Gregor N. Purdy
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 9/30/2001 10:28 AM
Subject: Re: Sizes, again.
On Sunday 30 September 2001 11:14 am, Gregor N. Purdy wrote:
> The stuff I'm about to check in that allows NVs to mov
Bryan --
> > The stuff I'm about to check in that allows NVs to move to the constant
> > table is set up to also allow IVs to live there, too. I haven't made
> > the assembler and the ops do that yet, but it is possible. I thought we
> > were going to have sizeof(IV) == sizeof(OP), and handle lar
This fix is independent of the rest of size issues.
Index: interpreter.c
===
RCS file: /home/perlcvs/parrot/interpreter.c,v
retrieving revision 1.20
diff -c -r1.20 interpreter.c
*** interpreter.c 2001/09/26 18:13:50 1.20
On Sunday 30 September 2001 11:14 am, Gregor N. Purdy wrote:
> The stuff I'm about to check in that allows NVs to move to the constant
> table is set up to also allow IVs to live there, too. I haven't made
> the assembler and the ops do that yet, but it is possible. I thought we
> were going to ha
Bryan --
> I got most of the casting and arithmetic problems patched [1], but am running
> into alignment problems with the bytecode because it currently expects
> sizeof(opcode_t) == sizeof(IV). (Or something, I can't tell quite yet
> whether the problems in the assembler or the _unpack funct
I've been testing situations where sizeof(opcode_t) != sizeof(IV) !=
sizeof(IV).
I got most of the casting and arithmetic problems patched [1], but am running
into alignment problems with the bytecode because it currently expects
sizeof(opcode_t) == sizeof(IV). (Or something, I can't tell qui
