On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 12:01 AM, Stefan O'Rear <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 11:38:58PM -0700, Peter Lobsinger wrote: >> 3) Have a separate ops table for every bytecode segment, switch tables > > 3a) The core ops become merely a preloaded dynop table. Since you only > pay for the ops you use (and a dispatch pointer is the same size as a > single opcode_t), the huge table problem goes away.
Does this mean that every PBC bytecode segment has to explicitly list every op that it uses by a globally unique name in some sort of yet to be created header? Seems like that might bloat PBC significantly. _______________________________________________ http://lists.parrot.org/mailman/listinfo/parrot-dev
