> Thanks for the comments Jimmy. > I know that the length assumption about the constants is bad, but there's > currently no specced way to differentiate, so I decided to stick with the old > implementation until we pick a new one.
> As for the PC, the spec needs to describe how the PC gets incremented so that > tests like the poke_caller tests which manipulate PC explicitly work > correctly. Before I started working on m0, the perl implementation > incremented by 1 and the c by 4. This means that they both couldn't pass the > same poke_caller test. So I changed the c implementation to increment PC by > one on each iteration of the run loop. Then I updated the spec to explicitly > state that. I think this is the way to go. If not, the spec needs to > explicitly say increment by 4 and we need to fix the perl implementation and > poke_caller test. I agree with you, but who updates spec, who will continue designing M0. Jimmy Zhuo _______________________________________________ http://lists.parrot.org/mailman/listinfo/parrot-dev
