At 10:19 AM 10/30/2001 -0500, Michael Fischer wrote:
>On Oct 29, Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> took up a keyboard and banged out
> > At 03:33 PM 10/29/2001 -0500, Ken Fox wrote:
> > >Anybody do a gcc-specific "goto *pc" dispatcher
> > >for Parrot yet? On some architectures it really
> > >cooks.
> >
> > That's a good question. There was talk and benchmark numbers from a
> variety
> > of different dispatchers.
> >
> > C'mon folks, kick in the code. I'll weld dispatch selection into
> > configure.pl if I've got the dispatchers to work from...
>
>I had been talking over this one with Gregor in private mail,
>but both of us thought to wait until a number of other things
>settled down. Particularly the MT, runtime linking of other
>files, etc., etc..
I don't think that should hold up custom runops cores. We may potentially
have to alter code at some point, but that's OK, and having multiple core
implementations means we'll shake out the bugs with the design faster.
>Also, my understanding was that the goto *pc _was_ indeed very
>gcc specific, and therefore a no-no for parrot. Thoughts?
It's fine as long as it's not the only core. Multiple runops cores,
selected and built at config time, are just fine.
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
