On 3 January 2013 02:55, David T. Lewis <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 02, 2013 at 05:26:25PM -0800, tim Rowledge wrote: >> >> On 02-01-2013, at 4:15 PM, "David T. Lewis" <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > Do you have a reference to the sensible compiled method format? I think >> > I recall some discussions on that topic, but I don't recall when or by >> > whom. >> >> I was thinking of the now-ancient 'NewCompiledMethod', going back to about >> 1997. The last I heard on the subject was about 5 years ago. > > Ah, right, it's all coming back to me now. Thanks. > >> But.. >> > >> > But really, what are we missing? We have CompiledMethodTrailer that >> > appears to >> > provide an infinitely extensible mechanism for inventing new kinds of >> > source >> > pointers. >> >> ? it reads as if that might provide the same result. Namely having the >> source pointer for each method be a proper oop, with all the obvious >> advantages over a weirdly encrypted 24bit number hidden within some bytes at >> the end of a byte array >> > > In principle, I think yes. Igor Stasenko created the CompiledMethodTrailer, > which has provided a really nice way to keep the existing formats working > while > allowing all sorts of extensions. I'm not sure if he had in mind to implement > source pointers as first class objects, but it seems like it would be a > straightforward extension. > Sure thing, i wanted to go forward. I wrote about it multiple times. But we need someone who will put an idea into flesh :)
> Cross posting to pharo in order to lure Igor back into the discussion ;-) > > Dave -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.
