On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> Simon Cozens writes:
> > > Nice!
> > Efficient!
> > Practical!
> >
> > Choose two.
>
> I take this oblique comment to mean that it'd bloat the op-tree too
> much?
>
> I was thinking of this over lunch. I want to be able to strip the
> instruction sequence of line number, package, etc. information, in the
> name of a smaller memory footprint and smaller distributed bytecode.
> It'd make debugging tricky, but if there was still a sequence number
> ("error at opcode #1590") preserved, the user could produce an
> unstripped executable and then use the sequence number to see where
> the problem was.
I wouldn't worry about this too much. If it's all keyed off an opcode of
some sort ("Current line info"), we could easily just strip those opcodes
out. They won't take up that much space relative to the rest of the
program, but I can see some sort of runtime overhead if we have each
'current line' op smack a pointer to the current line info into the
interpreter structure or something.
There may be a more efficient way to do it, though. Can't think of a
spiffy way at the moment, but that doesn't mean there isn't one.
dan
