Re: cvs commit: parrot/docs/pdds pdd03_calling_conventions.pod
Leopold Toetsch
> +I<Only> if there are overflow parameters. Otherwise garbage
> +=item I0
> +
> +=item I1-I4
I3 isn't always visible?
> ... Fetching the return continuation
> +may be expensive, and should only be done if truly necessary.
Err, e.g. for returning from the sub?
This would imply a distinct return opcode instead of C<invoke P1>.
ret_cc
returncc
...
leo
Dan Sugalski
>Dan Sugalski <d...@cvs.perl.org> wrote:
>> +I<Only> if there are overflow parameters. Otherwise garbage
>
>> +=item I0
>> +
>> +=item I1-I4
>
>I3 isn't always visible?
Effectively it is, yes.
> > ... Fetching the return continuation
>> +may be expensive, and should only be done if truly necessary.
>
>Err, e.g. for returning from the sub?
>
>This would imply a distinct return opcode instead of C<invoke P1>.
That went in, or was supposed to go in, as part of moving the return
continuation into the interpreter struct. I presume this hasn't
happened?
--
Dan
--------------------------------------it's like this-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
d...@sidhe.org have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
Leopold Toetsch
> At 9:16 PM +0100 11/16/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
>>This would imply a distinct return opcode instead of C<invoke P1>.
> That went in, or was supposed to go in, as part of moving the return
> continuation into the interpreter struct. I presume this hasn't
> happened?
It was supposed so, yes. But:
Please read the start of the thread "calling conventions, tracebacks,
and register allocator", from Nov 6th.
I asked about the return sequence. Your answer was: "no changes to the
calling conventions".
So it didn't happen, yet.
leo