On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 09:35:02AM -0600, Patrick R. Michaud wrote: > On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 04:15:14PM +0100, Nick Wellnhofer wrote: > > I completely agree with your analysis. There's another approach: > > > > (4) We don't build the signature object at all, but we transfer the > > arguments directly from the "raw" signatures and the registers of > > the caller to the registers of the callee. So we'd have a single > > function that does the work of build_sig_object and fill_params. > > This might be even more complex than fill_params, though. > > Isn't "transfer arguments directly to registers of callee" > almost _exactly_ what we had before the work on the new Parrot > calling conventions work of ~16 months ago...?
...however, since what we had before was arguably somewhat faster than what we have now, don't take my comment above as a vote for-or-against Nick's suggestion. Just take it as a remark of "if we choose this approach, what do we know now that we didn't know then?" and "Let's be sure to review the reasons that caused us to change from this approach in the first place." Pm _______________________________________________ http://lists.parrot.org/mailman/listinfo/parrot-dev
