At 10:08 AM 9/10/2001 -0700, Wizard wrote:
>Uri Guttman wrote:
> > but having parrot op codes map to special instructions
> > makes sense only if we are doing some form of machine instruction
> > generation as with JIT or TIL.
>
>Actually, I wasn't necessarily asking for any special ops (I'm not actually
>asking for anything, it's just a suggestion), just that the boolean math
>operations use a specific register or registers. I think this would make
>implementing code generation on those platforms more straight-forward.
Okay, I see what you're aiming at. I don't think we will, mainly because
it's not going to do us a whole lot of good. Parrot's got more registers
than any system on the planet that I know of, so the bit that handles
converting to native machine code will need to do some analysis and
register renaming anyway. It can handle putting things in the right places.
Besides, no matter what we do, Perl and/or Parrot assembly is probably
*not* the right place to do embedded device speed critical things. (I
wouldn't do it in BASIC or Fortran either. C or Forth maybe, but that'd be
about it) Other embedded device things, sure, but not the real low-level
stuff. Too many layers of abstraction in the way.
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
