Re: MMD vtable functions in bytecode

2004-03-29 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 10:24 PM +0200 3/29/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote: Dan Sugalski wrote: At 8:16 PM +0200 3/29/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote: Did you consider ussng PMCs as instead of plain function pointers. As outlined a NCI, C, and PASM Sub PMC would be equally just invoke()d. Yeah, I did. You end up with a twofo

Re: MMD vtable functions in bytecode

2004-03-29 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 10:28 PM +0200 3/29/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote: Dan Sugalski wrote: [ cvs ci library/vtable_constants.pasm ] Isn't working IMHO. C<.const int ..> is PIR syntax. *And* that file could be easily auto-created like almost all inside F Ah, damn, that's what I get for not double-checking my working

Re: MMD vtable functions in bytecode

2004-03-29 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Dan Sugalski wrote: [ cvs ci library/vtable_constants.pasm ] Isn't working IMHO. C<.const int ..> is PIR syntax. *And* that file could be easily auto-created like almost all inside F leo

Re: MMD vtable functions in bytecode

2004-03-29 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Dan Sugalski wrote: At 8:16 PM +0200 3/29/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote: Did you consider ussng PMCs as instead of plain function pointers. As outlined a NCI, C, and PASM Sub PMC would be equally just invoke()d. Yeah, I did. You end up with a twofold problem there--not only do you have extra indir

Re: MMD vtable functions in bytecode

2004-03-29 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 9:40 PM +0200 3/29/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote: Dan Sugalski wrote: You've got me confused here. Well, the question is: Is it allowed to create a continuation in one subroutine with the destination label being in a different subroutine? Oh, OK. Erm. No. Mostly. Subs must be considered self-co

Re: MMD vtable functions in bytecode

2004-03-29 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Dan Sugalski wrote: You've got me confused here. Well, the question is: Is it allowed to create a continuation in one subroutine with the destination label being in a different subroutine? .sub _f1 label = get_addr dest_label _f2(label) ... dest_label: .end .sub _f2 .param int

Re: MMD vtable functions in bytecode

2004-03-29 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 11:12 AM +0100 3/27/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote: Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [ mmd functions ] Another question: ,--[ pdd15 ]-- |While vtable methods may take a continuation, those |continuations may not escape the

Re: MMD vtable functions in bytecode

2004-03-29 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 10:29 AM -0800 3/29/04, chromatic wrote: On Mon, 2004-03-29 at 10:23, Dan Sugalski wrote: Ultimately it ought to be doable to have the JIT, on JIT capable systems, construct custom C function headers which means we could skip the second table *and* not bother with PMCs or anything equally f

Re: MMD vtable functions in bytecode

2004-03-29 Thread chromatic
On Mon, 2004-03-29 at 10:23, Dan Sugalski wrote: > Ultimately it ought to be doable to have the JIT, > on JIT capable systems, construct custom C function headers which > means we could skip the second table *and* not bother with PMCs or > anything equally fat for the function entries. Would b

Re: MMD vtable functions in bytecode

2004-03-29 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 8:40 AM +0100 3/27/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote: Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: So, I'm doing these, because I need 'em, and we might as well get the things in now. For the record, these things will be called as functions (not methods), with three parameters, so the signature looks lik

Re: MMD vtable functions in bytecode

2004-03-29 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 8:16 PM +0200 3/29/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote: Dan Sugalski wrote: At 8:40 AM +0100 3/27/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote: A short question WRT implementation: shouldn't all MMD functions just use one function slot? You now seem to duplicate the whole table. Yes, I do. Did you consider ussng PMCs as

Re: MMD vtable functions in bytecode

2004-03-29 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Dan Sugalski wrote: At 8:40 AM +0100 3/27/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote: A short question WRT implementation: shouldn't all MMD functions just use one function slot? You now seem to duplicate the whole table. Yes, I do. Did you consider ussng PMCs as instead of plain function pointers. As outlined

Re: MMD vtable functions in bytecode

2004-03-27 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [ mmd functions ] Another question: ,--[ pdd15 ]-- |While vtable methods may take a continuation, those |continuations may not escape the vtable method's |execution. This is due to

Re: MMD vtable functions in bytecode

2004-03-26 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So, I'm doing these, because I need 'em, and we might as well get the > things in now. For the record, these things will be called as > functions (not methods), with three parameters, so the signature > looks like: A short question WRT implementation: shou

MMD vtable functions in bytecode

2004-03-25 Thread Dan Sugalski
So, I'm doing these, because I need 'em, and we might as well get the things in now. For the record, these things will be called as functions (not methods), with three parameters, so the signature looks like: .pcc_sub thingie prototyped .param pmc left .param pmc right .param