fill_params GCI task
wellnhofer at aevum.de
Fri Jan 7 16:38:19 UTC 2011
On 07/01/2011 17:01, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 09:35:02AM -0600, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 04:15:14PM +0100, Nick Wellnhofer wrote:
>>> I completely agree with your analysis. There's another approach:
>>> (4) We don't build the signature object at all, but we transfer the
>>> arguments directly from the "raw" signatures and the registers of
>>> the caller to the registers of the callee. So we'd have a single
>>> function that does the work of build_sig_object and fill_params.
>>> This might be even more complex than fill_params, though.
>> Isn't "transfer arguments directly to registers of callee"
>> almost _exactly_ what we had before the work on the new Parrot
>> calling conventions work of ~16 months ago...?
> ...however, since what we had before was arguably somewhat
> faster than what we have now, don't take my comment above as a
> vote for-or-against Nick's suggestion. Just take it as a remark of
> "if we choose this approach, what do we know now that we didn't
> know then?" and "Let's be sure to review the reasons that caused
> us to change from this approach in the first place."
I haven't been around back then, so it's possible that what I described
was the old approach. I also not sure if that approach is better
overall, but it certainly has some upsides.
More information about the parrot-dev