Hi Noah,
Thanks for the thoughts.
On Fri 03 Aug 2012 00:21, Noah Lavine <noah.b.lav...@gmail.com> writes:
> That sounds interesting, but I have a question - why not make the MVRA
> return address immediately after the call, instead of immediately
> before it? In the common case when returning to the regular return
> address, that would eliminate the extra branch (although it's a very
> small branch anyway).
It's a good idea; I have it in my local branch. Putting the MVRA before
the call didn't work out because the call instruction is
variable-length.
> CALL:
> call f
> MVRA:
> jump mv-handler
> RA:
> ... rest of function ...
Yes and for a truncating return:
CALL:
call f
MVRA:
truncate
RA:
... rest of function ...
Native compilation should do something different though. But Mark's
mail has more on that, so I'll reply there.
Andy
--
http://wingolog.org/
