Re: sizeof(INTVAL), sizeof(void*), sizeof(opcode_t)

2001-11-21 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 08:43 PM 11/19/2001 -0500, brian wheeler wrote: >On Mon, 2001-11-19 at 19:59, James Mastros wrote: > > I propose that we make INTVAL and opcode_t the same size, and gaurrenteed > > to be able to hold a void*. > > > >Seems reasonable to me, since jsr and jump are slated to use an I >register to

Re: sizeof(INTVAL), sizeof(void*), sizeof(opcode_t)

2001-11-21 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 12:19 PM 11/20/2001 -0500, Ken Fox wrote: >James Mastros wrote: > > In byteswapping the bytecode ... > > > > I propose that we make INTVAL and opcode_t the same size, and gaurrenteed > > to be able to hold a void*. > >It sounds like you want portable byte code. Is that a goal? It seems like >we

Quick set of status updates

2001-11-21 Thread Dan Sugalski
'Kay, here's the list: *) I'm adding a CHEATS_TO_BE_FIXED file that holds notes on all cheats that need fixing. (Like the hand-rolling of faked PMCs in the newinterp opcode) It's OK to cheat if it's noted here and the cheat can be replaced with non-cheat code later. (If, for example, you need

RE: sizeof(INTVAL), sizeof(void*), sizeof(opcode_t)

2001-11-21 Thread Brent Dax
Dan Sugalski: # At 08:43 PM 11/19/2001 -0500, brian wheeler wrote: # >On Mon, 2001-11-19 at 19:59, James Mastros wrote: # > > I propose that we make INTVAL and opcode_t the same size, # and gaurrenteed # > > to be able to hold a void*. # > > # > # >Seems reasonable to me, since jsr and jump are sl

Re: sizeof(INTVAL), sizeof(void*), sizeof(opcode_t)

2001-11-21 Thread Alex Gough
On Wed, 21 Nov 2001, Dan Sugalski wrote: > Nah, using an I register as a host-machine-address for jumps doesn't argue > for sizeof(INTVAL) >= sizeof(void *). Instead, it argues that the design > that uses an int as an absolute address is wrong. > > I'm going to rewrite the docs and ops to use a

Opcode names and the assembler

2001-11-21 Thread Dan Sugalski
Okay, we're going to start allowing opcode names to have underscores in 'em, and I think we should stomp out the specific opcodes. (I.e set_i goes, but set stays) Anyone care to take this on? The .ops parsing code's gotten rather more complex since the last time I touched it... :)

RE: sizeof(INTVAL), sizeof(void*), sizeof(opcode_t)

2001-11-21 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 11:35 AM 11/21/2001 -0800, Brent Dax wrote: >Dan Sugalski: ># At 08:43 PM 11/19/2001 -0500, brian wheeler wrote: ># >On Mon, 2001-11-19 at 19:59, James Mastros wrote: ># > > I propose that we make INTVAL and opcode_t the same size, ># and gaurrenteed ># > > to be able to hold a void*. ># > > >#

[PMC] Test Suite

2001-11-21 Thread Jeff G
The attached file is a proposed PMC test suite. Now, of course, PMCs aren't implemented yet, but this will give us a test suite to validate PMCs against behavior once it's been fully specified. The enclosed file tests set/get of PMC variables and the basic operations in almost all combinations. F

Re: [PMC] Test Suite

2001-11-21 Thread Jeff G
Jeff G wrote: Erps, forgot to attach file apparently. File now attached. > The attached file is a proposed PMC test suite. > > Now, of course, PMCs aren't implemented yet, but this will give us a > test suite to validate PMCs against behavior once it's been fully > specified. The enclosed file t

[PMC] Test suite - Third time's the charm...

2001-11-21 Thread Jeff G
Previous comments apply here. I'm also making the necessary modifications to link in vtable_ops locally. -Jeff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>