At 1:49 PM -0700 6/14/02, Larry Wall wrote:
>On Fri, 14 Jun 2002, Nicholas Clark wrote:
>: Or would the property of "I don't use caller or want" still be useful on a
>: subroutine, because the run-time could determine that it would be
>: inline-able (or whatever) inside a loop at run time, based o
On Fri, 14 Jun 2002, Nicholas Clark wrote:
: But surely an routine that calls another routine can potentially have its
: stack inspected by the caller?
Certainly.
: So it would only make sense for leaf nodes, and even then they might
: get inspected by overloaded values or methods on objects tha
On Fri, 14 Jun 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
: At 9:54 AM +0200 6/14/02, Aldo Calpini wrote:
: >you would
: >not be able, for example, to inspect the call stack from inside a Parrot
: >program anymore.
:
: That, unfortunately, makes it untenable, since we need to be able to
: do this in the general
At 9:54 AM +0200 6/14/02, Aldo Calpini wrote:
>you would
>not be able, for example, to inspect the call stack from inside a Parrot
>program anymore.
That, unfortunately, makes it untenable, since we need to be able to
do this in the general case. Also, we'll fill up the thread stack
pretty quic
hello there,
in one of my endless tours inside the JIT world, I came up with this idea
which seems to give a major speed increase.
basically, I'm substituting the Parrot method for subroutines (push the
current address in the call stack and then jump) with a plain native
x86 ASM call instruction
