OpenEuphoria

Re: Comments on ORAC

• Posted by Matt Lewis <matthewwalkerlewis at gmai?.com> Nov 11, 2007
• 626 views

Mike wrote:
> 
> Pete Lomax wrote:
> > 
> > Mike wrote:
> > > However, I've restricted it to work only for constants that are associated
> > > with
> > > functions that eventually lead back to the specific machine_func() call
> > > that
> > > links to a dll.
> > 
> > Any further thoughts on using the #30000000 mask idea to eliminate that
> > restriction?
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Pete
> 
> Sorry Pete. A mask would only be useful if the Euphoria internals were
> modified
> to natively support (what I refer to as) seamless calls. If such a
> modification
> were done, there'd be no need for what I just did to Orac.. ummm, it would be
> a
> better solution - for sure. Unfortunately, I'm not one of the few people
> talented
> enough to do this adjustment. What I've done is a compile-time analysis,
> whereas,
> a mask is a run-time flag.
> 
> Now, if the Euphoria internals were modified to have said mask, Orac could
> only
> take advantage of this for routines called as procedures since it'd have to
> emit
> some "if" statements. Therefore, routines called as functions (in an
> expression)
> just wouldn't work.

I think you're overcomplicating this.  Since you're writing a preprocessor,
you just need to create a global function and a global procedure, something
like:

global function call_indirect_function( integer func, sequence args )
    if and_bits( func, C_FUNC_INDIRECT ) then
        return c_func( and_bits( func, ROUTINE_MASK ), args )

    elsif and_bits( func, EU_FUNC_INDIRECT ) then
        return call_func( and_bits( func, ROUTINEMASK ), args )
    end if
    -- error handling here...
end function

Matt