64 bit cleanup completion?

[Ian Piumarta]

On Apr 21, 2006, at 8:39 PM, Ian Piumarta wrote:
>
> On Apr 21, 2006, at 4:49 PM, tim Rowledge wrote:
>
>>> Dan has expressed a
>>> lack of time to do anything with them but a willingness to sit with
>>> someone and a beer to explain what he was thinking of. I'm not going
>>> to be heading down to silicon valley anytime soon so I certainly
>>> can't do that but anyone that can take notes could do it and report
>>> back. Volunteers?
>
> I could maybe do that next week.  But here's what I remember as the  
> last thoughts on the matter:


The only thing Dan wanted to add immediately (without going back and  
looking at his image) to my recollections was that storing 64-bit  
words in Bitmap-like objects also required a new format ("indexable  
64-bit words only") and class (variableLongWordSubclass:... or  
something akin).

He also reminded me that I'd been wanting to generalise the code  
generation such that the choice of image word size could be made at C  
compile time, rather than when translating the sources.  (The various  
constants appearing by value and that are currently set depending on  
the word size would instead appear by name in the code, and the build  
environment would be responsible for switching between 32- or 64-bit  
definitions for them.)  This would allow identical sources to  
generate all 4 permutations of image width and hardware pointer width.

(The beer in fact turned out to be fish and wine at Joanie's. :)

Cheers,
Ian