On Fri, 14 Sep 2001 16:42:21 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>Nope. At the very least, a bytecode file needs to start with:
>
>8-byte word: endianness (magic value 0x123456789abcdef0)
>byte: word size
>byte[7]: empty
>word: major version
>word: minor version
>
>Where all word values are as big as the word size says they are.
I'm just wondering... Since we need a conversion tool for reading
non-native bytecode formats anyway, and since all bytecodes will be
limited to 32 bit... could it not be that on current day processors,
reading and converting of 32 bit bytecodes to 64 bit, if that is the
native format, could actually be faster than reading in 64 bit bytecodes
with no conversion? I would think that CPU cycles are cheap when
compared to disk I/O.
I can't test myself, I don't have that kind of machine.
--
Bart.
