|
From: Julian S. <js...@ac...> - 2005-02-11 15:59:20
|
> I was thinking of having three prefixes. I started with VGA for the > arch-abstraction, which I was doing first. I was going to use VGO and VGP > for OS- and platform-abstraction, but VGP was already taken for > profiling-related stuff, so I ended up just using VGA throughout. > > I'd recommend no longer using VGP for the profiling stuff, since it > doesn't seem worth distinguishing, and using VGA, VGO and VGP as I > originally intended -- those three layers do seem worth distinguishing. I agree. That sounds good to me. It's dubious that the profiling can be made to work portably/reliably now, and in any case since the JIT has been sawn off and made into a library, profiling at least that part of the system is easy anyway (by using a standalone test driver). So we may as well forget about it, and nuke the associated code. In similar vein there's been a lot of rationalising of type names in the vex tree, to get stuff 64-bit clean, and there's more to come. > But I'd say there's no rush; this might be better done once Julian's Vex > tree is merged with CVS. Yes; indeed being too eager about it may even end up making your life more difficult. J |