Newsgroups: perl.perl6.internals
From: brent...@cpan.org (Brent Dax)
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 14:48:38 -0800
Local: Thurs, Jan 23 2003 5:48 pm
Subject: RE: Bytecode metadata
Dan Sugalski:
# At 12:10 AM -0800 1/23/03, Brent Dax wrote: # >Dan Sugalski: # ># Since it looks like it's time to extend the packfile # format and the # # >in-memory bytecode layout, this would be the time to start # discussing # # >metadata. What sorts of metadata do people think are useful # to have # # >in either the packfile (on disk) or in the bytecode (in memory). # > # >I do think that, whatever "native" (i.e. understood by # Parrot) metadata # >we support, we *must* allow for extensibility, both for # future native # >metadata and for third-party tools. # # "Must" is an awfully strong word, there. We don't really "must" do # anything, though I do realize the feature is useful, hence my # question. A strong word for a strong opinion. :^) Besides, I did qualify it with # > Moreover, this must not be Are you expecting to have chunk type determined by order? If so, what I would suggest (roughly) the following format for a chunk: TYPE: One 32-bit number For C-heads, think of it like this: struct Chunk { Type IDs less than 256 would be reserved to Parrot (so we have plenty of If there's a directory of some sort, it should record the type ID and --Brent Dax <brent...@cpan.org> >How do you "test" this 'God' to "prove" it is who it says it is? "If you're God, you know exactly what it would take to convince me. Do that." --Marc Fleury on alt.atheism You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| ||||||||||||||