On Nov 15, 2008, at 3:33 PM, Geoffrey Garen wrote:
Cameron and I now regret "BytecodeInterpreter". We think "JSC::Interpreter" is pretty darn clear, and it matches "JSC::JIT". Putting "bytecode" in the name just feels redundant. JSC has no non- bytecode interpreters.
What do you think?
I agree. The old Interpreter class is the only thing that prevented me from suggesting this long ago.
So we have this directory structure:
bytecode -> generator -> interpreter -> jit -> sampler
I'm not sure I like having a lot of subdirectories under bytecode though, particularly since they will each contain so few files. I'd propose:
- bytecodegenerator or bytecompiler at top level (Bytecompiler is a slightly more concise term of art for a compiler that outputs bytecode, with no ambiguity about whether the bytecode is going in or out) - a bytecode directory at top level containing general bytecode data structures and the bytecode interpreter - a jit directory at top level - sampler stuff relegated to one of the above
That's more in line with the directory structure we all discussed before, and which we've barely had a chance to get used to.
On IRC, we agreed to:
bytecode: holds CodeBlock*, EvalCodeCache.h, Opcode*, Instruction.h bytecompiler: holds BytecodeGenerator*, RegisterID.h, Label.h, LabelScope.h, SegmentedVector.h interpreter: holds BytecodeInterpreter (Interpreter?), Register.h, RegisterFile* jit: holds JIT*, JITStubs*
Sounds great. - Maciej