On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 02:21:32AM +0100, Angel Faus wrote: [snip lots of good stuff]
> All this is obviously machine dependent: the code generated should > only run in the machine it was compiled for. So we should always keep > the original imc code in case we copy the pbc file to another > machine. Er, but doesn't that mean that imc code has now usurped the role of parrot byte code? I'm not sure what is a good answer here. But I thought that the intent of parrot's bytecode was to be the same bytecode that runs everywhere. Which is slightly incompatible with compiling perl code to something that runs as fast as possible on the machine that you're both compiling and running on. (These two being the same machine most of the time). Maybe we starting to get to the point of having imcc deliver parrot bytecode if you want to be portable, and something approaching native machine code if you want speed. Or maybe if you want the latter we save "fat" bytecode files, that contain IMC code, bytecode and JIT-food for one or more processors. And is this all premature optimisation, give that we haven't got objects, exceptions, IO or a Z-code interpreter yet? Nicholas Clark
