答复: M0 single deref

[Jimmy Zhuo]

> 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