On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 07:16:52 +0100, Tim Goetze wrote: > >Argh! I was thinking of dumping the code and rebuilding (hopefully keeping > >the state). Doing it that way would be interesting, but much harder. Youd > >have to either use a lot of function calls or do some hard code relocation > >stuff I think. > > yep, i was thinking about direct code generation (relocation > if you will) assuming it'd give the best execution speed. rt > modification of such constructs can easily set your thoughts > spinning for a few hours.
Yeah, that would be a cool project, but just really hard. I guess you could look at the .s output, and... dammit I'm gonna be mentally implementing this in my sleep now ;) > >No, I imagine it will be noticably slower, however I think CPU's are > >getting to the kind of power where its feasable to use it for real. > > i have yet to notice a power increase in the local cpu. ;) Well I generally get hardware pushed in my direction by work, so it sort of gradually gets faster without me really noticing :) > sigh, yes. i've been thinking about a simplistic dsp-only > scripting language for similar purposes lately, but concluded > that for the time being gcc producing dynamically reloaded > .so's would be the way to go (unfortunately saol produces > executables, hint ;). Yeah, saol .so's would rock. Some problem with global varaibles IIRC, I think there might be an ELF hack to get round it but I never looked into it too closely. - Steve
