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.