Stéphane Ducasse writes: > > >> The stack interpreter and closures are two distinct things: > >> closures are one things (some primitives, > >> some compiler changes). This we should integrate ASAP (then we can > >> port the newcompiler to emit this > >> closure code). So Closures is in milestone 1, definitely. > > It means that we should then produce our own VMs I imagine. So what > are the plans there? > - how do we generate them? Mathieu can build the mac one, bryce can > you build a linux one?
I can build the Linux one. Though, if I'm to keep doing it for more than just one or two, I'd like to use the same VM as Exupery does. That may pose some problems with Eliot's stack work. The stack work would require a large amount of rework in Exupery to make it compatible, basically the same work Eliot did on the VM but redone inside Exupery. Given the gains advertised the stack work isn't worthwhile stopping Exupery 1.0 development to support. The closures work should be easier, just a few bytecodes, basically the same as adding proper support for the closure compiler. Though I'm not sure what the benefits of Eliot's work over the closure compiler are if you're going to use the NewCompiler. > - how do we keep the files (do we have to have our own svn)? > > May be we should do a call, stating that we would like to integrate > the primitives and closure code > into squeak but need vms support. Bryce _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
