Thanks for the advice guys. I hadn't even thought of checking the documentation that actually *came* with the language. I've realised that the assembly part of pico is still too big for me to chew on, but I'll keep my eye on it. After all, part of the allure of the language is that I might be able to understand the Entire Thing someday.
On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 8:56 AM, Alexander Burger <a...@software-lab.de> wrote: > On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 01:49:28PM +0100, Joh-Tob Schäg wrote: > > I think if Regenaxer adds a new function the function pointer and thereby > > the binary(assembly code) becomes invalid. > > You misunderstood the question. > > > > On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 12:28:06AM -0500, Bruno Franco wrote: > > > > I don't really know any asm, but since the asm code for the picolisp > > > > functions is just a (vi 'function) away, I feel tempted to try. > > (vi 'function) edits the (Assembly- or Lisp-) *source* of 'function'. > > This has nothing to do with the function pointer, i.e. the address the > machine > code gets loaded to by the system linker at runtime. And this address is > not > predictable at all, it may even change upon each invocation of the binary, > depending on the linker and kernel's memory policy. > > - Alex > -- > UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe >
