Re: [PATCH] Bytecode bounds checking and TRACE_OPS

[Dan Sugalski]

At 10:33 AM 9/17/2001 -0400, Gregor N. Purdy wrote:
>Any thoughts?

The big one is you shouldn't assume that we are only going to have a single 
chunk of bytecode--we may well have several loaded from disk, and more 
created on the fly by eval/do/dynamic recompilation.

Also, we're trying to keep the stuff in the loop to a minimum, so for this 
I'd rather have a separate runops function, as well as having the actual 
funky stuff in the body separated out. (I'd really like it abstracted out 
into a generic debugging runops, but we can do that later)

Other than that it looks pretty good.

                                        Dan

--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski                          even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED]                         have teddy bears and even
                                      teddy bears get drunk