As the analysis of test errors of the new reigster allocator has shown, we have a problem WRT register allocation. This problem isn't new, but as the allocator is more efficiently reusing registers (or reusing them in a different way) it's exposed again.
We don't really have that much of a problem. What we have is just something more simple -- the target of a continuation marks the start of a basic block. That means that we have to assume everything we don't get handed back from the function's dirty and should be refetched.
Or, alternately, if we declare that the top half of the register set is preserved on function call and return we can assume that the PMCs and values in there are acceptable for use, though any that map to lexicals or globals ought to be refetched, since we have the possibility that the names have been rebound.
I'm perfectly fine in declaring that this is *only* legitimate in mainline code, and that code generators don't have to deal with the possibility that vtable or MMD function code has rebound names.
--
Dan
--------------------------------------it's like this-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
