Re: [PATCH] Bytecode bounds checking and TRACE_OPS

[Dan Sugalski]

At 10:58 AM 9/17/2001 -0400, Gregor N. Purdy wrote:
>Nor do I. Note that the checks themselves are about as cheap as they
>*can* be, though. And I think that not checking is dangerous. I *did*
>get some segfaults when I was working on the jump_i example. Just try
>running blamo.pasm (attached) on your stock interpreter...

While I'm not fond of segfaults myself, the place to check isn't in the 
interpreter loop. It's not unwarranted in assuming that it's told to go OK 
places. If we want to check the better place is inside the jump ops.

                                        Dan

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