At 11:35 AM 11/21/2001 -0800, Brent Dax wrote: >Dan Sugalski: ># At 08:43 PM 11/19/2001 -0500, brian wheeler wrote: ># >On Mon, 2001-11-19 at 19:59, James Mastros wrote: ># > > I propose that we make INTVAL and opcode_t the same size, ># and gaurrenteed ># > > to be able to hold a void*. ># > > ># > ># >Seems reasonable to me, since jsr and jump are slated to use an I ># >register to jump to a host-machine-address and start ># interpreting there. ># ># Nah, using an I register as a host-machine-address for jumps ># doesn't argue ># for sizeof(INTVAL) >= sizeof(void *). Instead, it argues that ># the design ># that uses an int as an absolute address is wrong. ># ># I'm going to rewrite the docs and ops to use a S register ># instead. Now all ># I need to do is figure out something to make S stand for that ># encompasses ># both uses. (Buffer pointer and generic pointer) > >Why not have an address PMC type? PMCs are designed to hold weird data; >besides, they'll have to be able to hold CVs anyway.
Oh, we will, but the I/N/S registers are named temps, and we'll have temp pointers that aren't to PMCs. Overloading the I registers is wrong, and using a P register will make the GC system more complex, so... S seems the appropriate type. Dan --------------------------------------"it's like this"------------------- Dan Sugalski even samurai [EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even teddy bears get drunk