[Newcompiler] Closure with push and store bytecode

[bryce at kampjes.demon.co.uk]

Marcus Denker writes:
 > On 28.04.2007, at 23:38, <bryce at kampjes.demon.co.uk>  
 > <bryce at kampjes.demon.co.uk> wrote:
 > > I doubt that the current set would be acceptable for the mainstream
 > > VM. I'd like to see a suitable bytecode set developed but I'm not sure
 > > if now is the right time.
 > 
 > Yes... adding bytecodes will be tricky. And the urge will be high to
 > say "if, then for real", that is, make a new complete bytecode set
 > that e.g. does not have artificial upper bounds for everything (jumps,
 > number of ivars, number of lits, number of temps) and is more regular,
 > leading to better performance.

It should be possible. Given a set of bytecodes that are easy to
compile, I could add them to the Exupery VM which is regularly
built for both Windows (by Andy Tween) and Linux.

Part of the problem with VM changes is it takes a few years for
new VMs to filter out for all the major platforms then time for
people to upgrade. 

But, keeping the closure compiler bytecode changes experimental will
make it easier to change the bytecodes as experience is gained. Once
there are other VMs out there with closure compiler bytecodes it will
be much less likely to change them. I plan to add support for proper
closures to Exupery in the next few releases. Having a good bytecode
set will help.

Bytecode changes should involve a discussion on vm-dev before the
bytecode set is finalised.

Bryce