You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Currently the caller of a function writes arguments to an in-memory stack (@rbp). If it instead just put them on the uxn working stack and let the callee (the function itself) write them to memory, it would reduce code size when a function is called more than once, and perhaps improve the general readability of the assembly. Maybe we could even use Uxntal's ( a -- b ) syntax for type-checking?
I didn't check if we support struct arguments, but if we do, they would have to be written to memory by the caller still, and then a pointer would be pushed to the uxn working stack.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Currently the caller of a function writes arguments to an in-memory stack (
@rbp
). If it instead just put them on the uxn working stack and let the callee (the function itself) write them to memory, it would reduce code size when a function is called more than once, and perhaps improve the general readability of the assembly. Maybe we could even use Uxntal's( a -- b )
syntax for type-checking?I didn't check if we support struct arguments, but if we do, they would have to be written to memory by the caller still, and then a pointer would be pushed to the uxn working stack.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: