Re: [Gcl-devel] call-arguments-limit

[Camm Maguire]

Greetings!

Raymond Toy <address@hidden> writes:

>>>>>> "Camm" == Camm Maguire <address@hidden> writes:
>
>     Camm> Greetings!  Henry Baker <address@hidden> writes:
>
>     >> Does GCL use some sort of bit mask for argument lists?
>     >>
>     >> That's fine, but I'm having trouble understanding when a bit
>     >> mask will be useful beyond -- e.g., 32 arguments.
>     >>
>     >> After than, either the function accepts _any_ number of
>     >> arguments, or it doesn't accept that many at all.
>     >>
>
>     Camm> Its a 32bit wide call descriptor which has 6 bits each for
>     Camm> the maximum and minimum number of arguments, in addition to
>     Camm> type info for the first 6 arguments, return value info, etc.
>
> Just out of curiosity. Why do you need type info for the arguments?
> Don't you pass around boxed objects and also return boxed objects?
>

Not always!  GCL has been able to pass unboxed arguments for years as a
performance feature.  Makes things quite a bit more complicated as you
can imagine.

BTW, you saw the note about ensure-directories-exist?

Take care,

> Ray
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gcl-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcl-devel
>
>
>
>

-- 
Camm Maguire                                        address@hidden
==========================================================================
"The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens."  --  Baha'u'llah