Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 11:39 AM 11/12/2001 -0500, Ken Fox wrote:
>>Simon Cozens wrote:
>> > You save one level of indirection, at a large complexity
>> > cost.
>>
>>A lot less complexity than a JIT though. 100% portable
>>code too.
>
> It's got the same sort of issue that
On Mon, Nov 12, 2001 at 11:39:34AM -0500, Ken Fox wrote:
> It's also something that can be bolted on later, so there's
> no reason to reject it now.
I'm not *reject*ing it now. I'm rejecting it *now*. :)
--
The trouble with computers is that they do what you tell them, not what
you want.
At 11:39 AM 11/12/2001 -0500, Ken Fox wrote:
>Simon Cozens wrote:
> > You save one level of indirection, at a large complexity
> > cost.
>
>A lot less complexity than a JIT though. 100% portable
>code too.
It's got the same sort of issue that a lot of other inlining's got, but...
In those cases
Simon Cozens wrote:
> You save one level of indirection, at a large complexity
> cost.
A lot less complexity than a JIT though. 100% portable
code too.
It's also something that can be bolted on later, so there's
no reason to reject it now. I'm just throwing it out to the
list because I know othe
On Mon, Nov 12, 2001 at 10:15:19AM -0500, Ken Fox wrote:
> Where this fits into Parrot's interpreter is that
> languages could pre-generate ops corresponding to
> dynamically generated inlined caches. All we need is a
> way to replace the simple method call op with the
> inlined one.
You save on
