Re: 答复: M0 single deref

[Christoph Otto]

On Sat, Apr 28, 2012, at 12:57, Jimmy Zhuo wrote:
> > Thanks for the comments Jimmy.
>
> > I know that the length assumption about the constants is bad, but
> > there's currently no specced way to differentiate, so I decided to
> > stick with the old implementation until we pick a new one.
>
> > As for the PC, the spec needs to describe how the PC gets
> > incremented so that tests like the poke_caller tests which
> > manipulate PC explicitly work correctly. Before I started working on
> > m0, the perl implementation incremented by 1 and the c by 4. This
> > means that they both couldn't pass the same poke_caller test. So I
> > changed the c implementation to increment PC by one on each
> > iteration of the run loop. Then I updated the spec to explicitly
> > state that. I think this is the way to go. If not, the spec needs to
> > explicitly say increment by 4 and we need to fix the perl
> > implementation and poke_caller test.
>
> I agree with you, but who updates spec, who will continue
> designing M0.
>
> Jimmy Zhuo

Your gentle hinting is well-taken.  I'll be merging changes, filling in
holes in the spec that you both have been kind enough to find and
generally getting this thing moving forward again as soon as I can get
enough irc time with you and nbrown to make sure I fully understand what
you both have been doing.

Thanks,
Christoph