At 1:57 PM -0700 8/9/02, Steve Fink wrote:
>On Fri, Aug 09, 2002 at 04:10:50PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>> Okay, one of the first things we need to do to support multiple
>> segment bytecode is to be able to swap in constant tables. (Since we
>> access constants by offset from the table, and we don't want to go
>> fix up the offsets every time we load in bytecode--ick. Slow)
>>
>> So...
>>
>> setconstant ix
>>
>> Takes the address *at* (not of) offset X and sticks it in the
>> interpreter structure as the address of the current constant table
>
>I wonder if the recent things you've been thinking about should be
>combined. Namely: make a PMC wrapper for the interpreter. Then do
>constant table manipulation through method invocations on the
>interpreter PMC. Or if not methods, then whatever mechanism you end up
>with for doing L-U decompositions for Josef H.'s matrix PMCs.
I'm all for doing a wrapper PMC for the interpreter--it'll make a
number of things easier for introspective purposes. On the other
hand, I don't want to go through that wrapper when the interpreter
does its stuff normally. Too much overhead.
>While we're at it, we could nuke interp_info and do that through keyed
>access to the interpreter PMC.
We could, though I'd rather keep the specific opcode. If, under the
hood, it uses the PMC methods, that's fine.
--
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
