At 09:08 AM 8/6/2001 -0400, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
>On Monday 06 August 2001 02:17 am, Uri Guttman wrote:
> > dan has ordered^Wsuggested that the op code be a 32 bit value. he didn't
> > like the escape code and 16 bits was too small a space. but i haven't
> > heard him spell out the op code dispatch design for that. so, here is a
> > way to use a 32 bit op code and support dynamic loading of byte code and
> > their private op code space.
>
>{snip}
>
>I probably misunderstood, but I thought that was a no-go.
>
>(Couple http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg02994.html
>with Dan wanting the opcodes to practically be byte codes (or versa vice),
>particularly to able to mmap code in read only and run straight from that.)
It's probably the name causing problems. Unless things change, everything
in the executable bits of parrot's bytecode stream will be 32 bits. We
might drop that to 16 bits, but that puts a heavy burden on branches I'd as
soon not have to deal with if we can avoid it.
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
