[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gcl-devel] call-arguments-limit
From: |
Raymond Toy |
Subject: |
Re: [Gcl-devel] call-arguments-limit |
Date: |
Wed, 06 Nov 2013 18:00:28 -0800 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.101 (Gnus v5.10.10) XEmacs/21.5-b33 (darwin) |
>>>>> "Camm" == Camm Maguire <address@hidden> writes:
Camm> 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?
>>
Camm> Not always! GCL has been able to pass unboxed arguments for
Camm> years as a performance feature. Makes things quite a bit
Camm> more complicated as you can imagine.
That is a nice feature.
Camm> BTW, you saw the note about ensure-directories-exist?
No, I must have missed that. But if it's implemented, that's
fantastic!
There were a few other items on my wishlist but I can't remember them
now. They would be useful for maxima (and other CL code, of course).
BTW, I can't build on sparc. Do you care about that? It's less of a
concern for me since I can now build on linux and OSX easily now.
Ray