Il 06/11/2013 20:56, Gwenaël Casaccio ha scritto:
>
> Yes I agree for the stack, I'm thinking about the bytecode combination
> if in the bc 80
> I send a message when it leave the message the ip is the next ip and it
> will go to the next
> instruction and for the bc 80 it's bad because it's the last
> instruction, if I'm right.
Ah, I see now.
In general if a (basic) bytecode can send, it can only be the
last message of a compound bytecode. See this part of superops.cc
" allSuperoperatorBreaks ["
" | breaks |"
" breaks := SortedCollection new."
" self allByteCodeIndicesDo: [ :i :b :op |"
///////// "Split where jumps land"
" (b >= 40 and: [ b <= 43 ])"
" ifTrue: [ breaks add: (self jumpDestinationAt: i forward: b >
40) ]."
///////// "Split after returns"
" (b >= 50 and: [ b <= 51 ])"
" ifTrue: [ breaks add: (self nextBytecodeIndex: i) ]."
///////// "Split after jumps"
" (b >= 40 and: [ b <= 43 ])"
" ifTrue: [ breaks add: (self nextBytecodeIndex: i) ]."
///////// "Split after push/store literal variable"
" (b = 34 or: [ b = 38 ])"
" ifTrue: [ breaks add: (self nextBytecodeIndex: i) ]."
///////// "Split after sends"
" (b < 32 and: [ (b + 12 bitAnd: 250) ~= 32 ])"
" ifTrue: [ breaks add: (self nextBytecodeIndex: i) ]"
" ]."
" ^breaks ]"
It splits after push/store literal variable because it sends #value and
#value: respectively. You would have to split after store instance variable
too, and regenerate the superoperators.
Paolo
_______________________________________________
help-smalltalk mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-smalltalk
