Hello, I just sent two patches which start to implement this to guile-sour...@gnu.org. (The first patch is actually a small documentation change, which I made only so I could rewrite it with updated documentation in the second patch.)
The patch works as you described - SCM objcodes become five-word objects, and all of the references get updated. I also had to change all of the files that include static objcodes, which is why there are changes to continuations.c, control.c, foreign.c, gsubr.c, and smob.c. Unfortunately, I've hit a snag that I don't understand - if you try to build it, you will see that control.c encounters an error in a function that isn't changed by the patch. I am hoping that someone who understands Guile's build system more than I do could look at that, because I don't know what's happening. There is one other issue with the patch that needs discussion, which is what to initialize the extra cells to. Currently they're initialized to NULL, and a comment describes a possible convention for storing JIT code with them, but I'm not convinced it's the best way. In particular, using an SCM symbol like 'no-jitcode for empty pointers would be more self-documenting, but I wasn't sure if it would work in statically-generated objcodes. Thanks Noah On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Andy Wingo <wi...@pobox.com> wrote: > On Tue 22 Jun 2010 00:23, Noah Lavine <noah.b.lav...@gmail.com> writes: > >> If I may ask, do you already have patches or a git branch that adds [a >> native code slot to objcode]? If so, what are you doing about the >> embedded objcode issue? (Changing the bytecode to leave room for it, >> or hiding the slot in the C code?) > > I do not have a patch, no. Feel free to implement :) Having not > implemented it, I do not know exactly what's needed, but I would not put > it in what is the struct scm_objcode, rather in the SCM value that > includes the objcode. > > I don't know if we can somehow fit this in a "double cell" or if we need > to have a five-word object (see scm_words ()). > > Andy > -- > http://wingolog.org/ >
