On 19/10/2007, Rob Withers <reefedjib at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Igor, I'm afraid you've lost me.  What would the bytecodes look like in your
> proposal?  From what you've said, wouldn't the #jumpFalse need to know what
> the literal to send is?  I also don't understand how it would extract the
> block contents.

You don't need to change bytecode. Just by analysing that jump
bytecode jumps over a block. Then you can assume that bytes between
jump bytecode and byte where it points to is the block body.
So, you can do the trick by changing implementation of #jumpFalse.
By sending #IfTrue: message to receiver and checking the result.

>
> thanks,
> Rob
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Igor Stasenko" <siguctua at gmail.com>
> To: "The general-purpose Squeak developers list"
> <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 3:06 PM
> Subject: Re: runtime compiled method optimizations
>
>
> > No, i think you'd better change the implementation of #jumpFalse
> > bytecode.
> > If you see that receiver is non-local , then simply do message send.
> > And, i think you can safely use info from jump bytecode to extract
> > block contents
> > (bytes 19 - 22 is the block body).
> >
> > On 19/10/2007, Robert Withers <reefedjib at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> I have a simple method containing an ifTrue: message.  I have
> >> compiled it normally, which uses macro transformations:
> >>
> >> 17 <10> pushTemp: 0
> >> 18 <9B> jumpFalse: 23
> >> 19 <10> pushTemp: 0
> >> 20 <20> pushConstant: 4
> >> 21 <B0> send: +
> >> 22 <7C> returnTop
> >> 23 <78> returnSelf
> >>
> >> and I have compiled it using Klaus Witzel's nifty compiler changes to
> >> remove macro transformations and the result is an explicit message
> >> send of #ifTrue:
> >>
> >> 21 <10> pushTemp: 0
> >> 22 <89> pushThisContext:
> >> 23 <75> pushConstant: 0
> >> 24 <C8> send: blockCopy:
> >> 25 <A4 04> jumpTo: 31
> >> 27 <10> pushTemp: 0
> >> 28 <21> pushConstant: 4
> >> 29 <B0> send: +
> >> 30 <7C> returnTop
> >> 31 <E0> send: ifTrue:
> >> 32 <87> pop
> >> 33 <78> returnSelf
> >>
> >> I would like to check the receiver of the ifTrue:, the 1st method arg
> >> in this case (Temp: 0), to see if a certain situation exists (is it a
> >> local reference to an object?).  If it is true, I would like to run
> >> the optimal code from the first example, instead of the longer second
> >> example.   How could we do that?  Something like this?  Could it be
> >> done entirely by the compiler, given the existence of the bytecode
> >> routine for #testLocalReference?
> >>
> >> 21 <10> pushTemp: 0
> >> 22 <??> testLocalReference
> >> 23 <??> jumpFalse: 30
> >> 24 <10> pushTemp: 0
> >> 25 <??> jumpFalse: 40
> >> 26 <10> pushTemp: 0
> >> 27 <20> pushConstant: 4
> >> 28 <B0> send: +
> >> 29 <7C> returnTop
> >> 30 <89> pushThisContext:
> >> 31 <75> pushConstant: 0
> >> 32 <C8> send: blockCopy:
> >> 33 <?? ??> jumpTo: 38
> >> 34 <10> pushTemp: 0
> >> 35 <21> pushConstant: 4
> >> 36 <B0> send: +
> >> 37 <7C> returnTop
> >> 38 <E0> send: ifTrue:
> >> 39 <87> pop
> >> 40 <78> returnSelf
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >> Rob
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
> >
> >
>
>
>


-- 
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.