At 11:41 PM 10/1/2001 -0400, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
>On Monday 01 October 2001 07:16 pm, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > >Well, we recently went to all the trouble to decouple opcodes from IVs -
> > > I assume for a reason. Do we want to undo that, or move them into the
> > > constant table?
> >
> > Nope.
>
>To one, the other, or both?
Both. :)
> > >If you re-couple the sizes, then you're pretty much committing to 64-bit
> > >opcodes, since you'll invariably want 64-bit IVs on platforms that
> > > support it.
> >
> > We guarantee integer constants that are no bigger than 32 bits can be
> > embedded in the opcode stream. Since opcode_t is at least 32 bits this is
> > OK.
>
>Inlined as what type? (And I assume, then, that you'll allow mix and match,
>where integers are either inlined or in the constant table, depending on
>their size - your explanation of "nope" pending, of course.)
Opcodes are 32 bit integers, so integer constants inlined are 32 bits as
well. If the actual opcode_t is big enough to hold 64-bit integers, well,
we won't be able to use 'em all in the inlined integer constants. That's OK.
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
