I haven't looked at the RTL program structure, but adding a new field is basically what I did with the non-RTL program structure when I worked on JIT there.
However, in that case we could still keep everything under 4 words. I don't know if that will work here. Noah On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 5:39 AM, Sjoerd van Leent Privé <svanle...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 06-08-12 11:32, Andy Wingo wrote: >> >> On Sun 05 Aug 2012 17:19, Stefan Israelsson Tampe >> <stefan.ita...@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> Probably it is best to have the first qword / dword in the code to be >>> 0 or the native adress e.g. I propose to add that feature to the >>> rtl-branch. >> >> Good question! Given the different tradeoffs, that seems workable. >> Another possibility would be to use a different TC7 for native >> procedures. After all, the only calls we need to make cheaply are >> native->native and bytecode->bytecode, and the rest can go through a >> general dispatch loop (possibly with inline caching). WDYT? (Also note >> that RTL words are 32 bits wide, which may or may not be sufficient for >> native code pointers.) >> >> Andy > > Wouldn't it be feasible in the future that there might be, because of more > memory, other designs, such as caching, which create much more closures than > current designs? I don't know, but on 64-bit platforms (and perhaps even > architectures with a larger bus), it seems to me that it is necessary to > stick to this bus length. >
