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
