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 can have either mmap'able byte code or portable byte code, but not both. >Personally, I'd rather have portable byte code because memory is cheap >and self-modifiying byte code opens up a lot of optimization potential. I >know others disagree.
I disagree. Besides, we can generally have it all--portable, and mmappable, and modifiable. (No *self* modifiable, but there's no reason you can't have the code pointer for a named (or unnamed, I suppose) subroutine change at runtime) >Are we looking at two different byte code formats? Dan? Nope. Search back through the archives a ways for the last go-round on this. Dan --------------------------------------"it's like this"------------------- Dan Sugalski even samurai [EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even teddy bears get drunk