On 3 January 2013 02:26, tim Rowledge <tim at rowledge.org> wrote:
>
> On 02-01-2013, at 4:15 PM, "David T. Lewis" <lewis at mail.msen.com> wrote:
>>
>> Do you have a reference to the sensible compiled method format? I think
>> I recall some discussions on that topic, but I don't recall when or by
>> whom.
>
> I was thinking of the now-ancient 'NewCompiledMethod', going back to about 1997. The last I heard on the subject was about 5 years ago.
> But..
>>
>> But really, what are we missing? We have CompiledMethodTrailer that appears to
>> provide an infinitely extensible mechanism for inventing new kinds of source
>> pointers.
>
> … it reads as if that might provide the same result. Namely having the source pointer for each method be a proper oop, with all the obvious advantages over a weirdly encrypted 24bit number hidden within some bytes at the end of a byte array
>

+1
as well as bytecode can be held in one oop, leaving a compiled method
need not to have separate object format, just a contract that its
first ivar is bytecode.


>
> tim
> --
> tim Rowledge; tim at rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
> Document the code?  Why do you think they call it "code?"


-- 
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko.