direct threaded interpreter

Sun May 12 21:52:00 GMT 2002

>>>>> "Bryce" == Bryce McKinlay <bryce@waitaki.otago.ac.nz> writes:

Bryce> I'd prefer to avoid #ifdef'ing different configurations if
Bryce> possible. Not only does it make the code messier but experience
Bryce> tells me that whatever configuration is not the default will
Bryce> probibly stop working sooner or later. A runtime option would
Bryce> definately be preferred if thats possible.
That would definitely be more difficult. I think to do that and keep
the performance gains, we'd basically need two interpreters. Though I
suppose we could do that by #include'ing the interpreter body twice.
What do you think of doing that? I think it is a bit ugly. I've
certainly disliked it in gcj -- but this is a different situation.
Other than maintenance, is there really much value in selecting this
at runtime? For desktop/server use, I'd basically never run the
non-direct interpreter. Only when space is at a minimum would I
consider it.
Right now it doesn't compile anyway, due to some gcc bug :-(. It
definitely won't go in before June at this point.
Tom