On Tue, 20 Nov 2001, Ken Fox wrote:
> It sounds like you want portable byte code. Is that a goal?
I do indeed want portable packfiles, and I thought that was more then a
"goal", I thought that was a "requirement". In an ideal world, I want a
PVM to be intergrated in a webbrowser the same way a JVM is now.
> 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 think we can get the best of both worlds. We, I think, should be able
to get the bytecode format such that it is mmapable on platforms with the
same endiannes and sizeof(INTVAL), and nonmmapable otherwise.
-=- James Mastros
--
Put bin Laden out like a bad cigar: http://www.fieler.com/terror
"You know what happens when you bomb Afghanastan? Thats right, you knock
over the rubble." -=- SLM
