Re: guile-vm 0.3

[Rob Browning]

Marius Vollmer <address@hidden> writes:

> Nice.  (You might even ask him if he would assign the copyright to
> Stalin to the FSF, ahem.)

OK.

I'm actually the one who badgered him in the first place about
changing the license to GPL.  I don't know what his opinion about
copyright assignment would be, but now that you mention it, that might
be a problem since I believe NEC would have to be involved as well.
As his employers, I seem to recall that they were involved in the
agreement to change the license.  (My thanks to NEC for agreeing BTW).

> I'm not so much thinking about "Scheme -> VM -> native", more about
> 
>                                       -> native
>     Scheme --> some low level stuff -|
>                                       -> VM 

Sounds good, and we can have whatever annotations are needed in the
"low-level stuff" in order to do appropriate optimizations.  One thing
I'd wondered about was whether or not we might want the "low level
stuff" here to actually be a byte code (though perhaps not the VM one)
or some other arch-independant disk writable format.

If we could have a post-compilation (i.e. after the really expensive
analysis) representation that was arch-independent, but could be
cheaply converted to VM input or assembly (via lightning) at load
time, we could have both speed and portability.  This format might
have to have more information that just VM byte codes, though, for the
reasons mentioned above...

Dunno, but maybe worth thinking about.

-- 
Rob Browning <address@hidden> PGP=E80E0D04F521A094 532B97F5D64E3930