Message234464
| Author | NeilGirdhar |
|---|---|
| Recipients | Jeff.Kaufman, Joshua.Landau, NeilGirdhar, Rosuav, SpaghettiToastBook, andybuckley, belopolsky, berker.peksag, eric.araujo, eric.snow, ezio.melotti, georg.brandl, giampaolo.rodola, gvanrossum, ncoghlan, paul.moore, pconnell, r.david.murray, terry.reedy, twouters, zbysz |
| Date | 2015-01-22.02:39:32 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <1421894372.72.0.926060539015.issue2292@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
Another option to consider is to just use a bit on the BUILD_MAP_UNPACK and then have a stack marking opcode at the function call (not sure what to call it, but say FUNCTION_CALL_MARK) The advantage would be you don't store or calculate relative stack positions. When the interpreter sees the mark, it stores the function call address for use in BUILD_MAP_UNPACK errors. Although I guess you have 24 bits to store the relative stack position? |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2015-01-22 02:39:32 | NeilGirdhar | set | recipients: + NeilGirdhar, gvanrossum, twouters, georg.brandl, terry.reedy, paul.moore, ncoghlan, belopolsky, giampaolo.rodola, ezio.melotti, eric.araujo, andybuckley, r.david.murray, zbysz, eric.snow, Rosuav, berker.peksag, Joshua.Landau, pconnell, Jeff.Kaufman, SpaghettiToastBook |
| 2015-01-22 02:39:32 | NeilGirdhar | set | messageid: <1421894372.72.0.926060539015.issue2292@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2015-01-22 02:39:32 | NeilGirdhar | link | issue2292 messages |
| 2015-01-22 02:39:32 | NeilGirdhar | create | |