At 4:57 AM +0530 11/12/02, Gopal V wrote:
If memory serves me right, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> that case, why bother verifying?
Hmm wouldn't the JIT benifit from a pre knowledge of basic blocks
and types or some information ? ... (I seem to think so ...).
Oh, sure. But whether the metadata is
Angel Faus wrote:
Hmm wouldn't the JIT benifit from a pre knowledge of basic
blocks and types or some information ? ... (I seem to think so
...).
I would think so, because if, for example, the JIT wants to do a full
register allocation to map parrot registers to machine registers, it
wou
> Hmm wouldn't the JIT benifit from a pre knowledge of basic
> blocks and types or some information ? ... (I seem to think so
> ...).
I would think so, because if, for example, the JIT wants to do a full
register allocation to map parrot registers to machine registers, it
would certainly nee
If memory serves me right, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Sure. Or at least not forbidden.
k ...
> that case, why bother verifying?
Hmm wouldn't the JIT benifit from a pre knowledge of basic blocks
and types or some information ? ... (I seem to think so ...).
> at runtime anyway. With a full scan o
At 9:25 PM +0530 11/11/02, Gopal V wrote:
If memory serves me right, Dan Sugalski wrote:
All you need to do is change the offset a bit to point to an opcode
and you'll be fine.
Hmm... you mean to say that a jump to a non-instruction is valid ? ..
Sure. Or at least not forbidden.
We've had
If memory serves me right, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> All you need to do is change the offset a bit to point to an opcode
> and you'll be fine.
Hmm... you mean to say that a jump to a non-instruction is valid ? ..
We've had the verifiability question hashed out ... but jump target
validation is one
At 10:02 AM -0500 11/11/02, Michael Collins wrote:
Hi,
This may be an ignorant statement since I just joined this list, but I noticed
that the parrot "branch" assembly instruction doesn't work and
sometimes causes
a core dump on Linux 2.4.
Oh, it works, you just need to understand it properly.
