At 12:19 PM 11/20/2001 -0500, Ken Fox wrote:
>James Mastros wrote:
> > In byteswapping the bytecode ...
> >
> > I propose that we make INTVAL and opcode_t the same size, and gaurrenteed
> > to be able to hold a void*.
>
>It sounds like you want portable byte code. Is that a goal? It seems like
>we can have either mmap'able byte code or portable byte code, but not both.
>Personally, I'd rather have portable byte code because memory is cheap
>and self-modifiying byte code opens up a lot of optimization potential. I
>know others disagree.
I disagree. Besides, we can generally have it all--portable, and mmappable,
and modifiable. (No *self* modifiable, but there's no reason you can't have
the code pointer for a named (or unnamed, I suppose) subroutine change at
runtime)
>Are we looking at two different byte code formats? Dan?
Nope. Search back through the archives a ways for the last go-round on this.
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
