[Vm-dev] Signed at:[put:] primitives for bits classes

[Eliot Miranda]

Hi Tim,

On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 12:24 PM, tim Rowledge <tim at rowledge.org> wrote:

>
>
>
> > On 20-06-2018, at 11:46 AM, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > I propose extending the semantics of 164 & 165 so that they match 60 &
> 61, except that they provide signed access to 8, 16, 32 & 64 bit pure bits
> formats, and providing JIT implementations for maximum performance.  Doing
> so should be easy; they are very close to the JIT implementations of 60 &
> 61.
> >
> > Once this is done we could eliminate use of 143 & 144 if we changed
> SoundBuffer to use primitives 164 & 165 and to have a
> variableDoubleWordSubclass: format.
>
> Sounds like a sensible simplification to me; less code is better code in
> general! How many releases should we go through before removing 143/4 ?
>

I don't think it's pressing to remove them.  They're not very complex and
they're layered on top of existing Interpreter support for at:put:
(commonAt et al).

_,,,^..^,,,_
best, Eliot
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/vm-dev/attachments/20180620/e7fb2d2b/attachment.html>