On Tue, 2001-11-20 at 12:19, 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.
Hmm. It wouldn't necessarily be portable, though it probably would be on
machines with the same size & endianness.
So, on an alpha, you'd have:
sizeof(INTVAL)=sizeof(opcode_t)=sizeof(void *)=64 bits
whereas on x86 (and other 32 bit machines)
sizeof(INTVAL)=sizeof(opcode_t)=sizeof(void *)=32 bits
and on the Parrot/C-64 VM you'd have
sizeof(INTVAL)=sizeof(opcode_t)=sizeof(void *)=16 bits
Is that right?
Brian
>
> Are we looking at two different byte code formats? Dan?
>
> - Ken
