On Dec 11, 2007 8:43 AM, Joshua Isom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Dec 10, 2007, at 10:59 AM, Klaas-Jan Stol wrote:
>
> > In order to draw attention to this point, I changed the subject.
> >
> > Is there anybody who thinks the removal from PIR of $-less registers
> > ("absolute" or PASM registers) should not be done?
> >
> > kjs
> >
>
> Parrot provides a calling convention, but does not, that I know of,
> mandate that calling convention. In any computer, there are multiple
> calling conventions used(often leading to a lack of interoperability,
> but nevertheless present). The system itself uses specific registers.
> Mixing absolute and relative registers in PIR does cause problems, but
> a program that solely used absolute registers and its own calling
> convention shouldn't be necessarily forbidden. Currently parrot has
> several ops that assist a different language/calling convention, such
> as bsr, and others of it's ilk. Mixing those ops and the "standard"
> calling convention ops together will probably cause massive problems,
> but they still exist(even if they're there more because they were long
> ago rather than need to be).
I thought the parrot calling conventions were changed so, that it doesn't
use these specific regs.
(the old pcc said, that in I0, I1, I2 etc, special info about the invocation
can be found, while the args were stored in specific regs.)
I may be wrong.
kjs
