[squirrelfish] JavaScriptCore renames

[Maciej Stachowiak]

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