Re: porting of assembler code ...

On Apr 7, 2007, at 2:01 PM, Peter Golde wrote:

>
> One suspects that there were good reasons those routines were in  
> assembler
> to begin with, having to do with performance and/or functionality.  
> I would
> be hesistant to move them without good reason.
>
> Does the GNU compiler support an inline assembly syntax? If so,  
> that would
> seem to be an easier path, at least at first.

I seem to remember David mentioning that the assembly was effectively  
legacy code: there are portions of the code base that do need to be  
implemented at a low level, but at some point the Strongtalk team  
began to write C++ that calls into the VM's native code generator to  
create the required instructions when the VM starts up. Perhaps the  
way forward is to convert the existing assembly to dynamically- 
generated machine code.

Colin

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Strongtalk-general" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/strongtalk-general?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---