in reply to Re: Callstack manipulation?
in thread Callstack manipulation?
Theoratically speaking: If it's possible to safely do a 'goto &sub' without leaving the call frame, why shouldn't it be possible to simulater this state of the engine right after the call ... it's just a "return" without moving the process-pointer.
I'm not to fond about XS but maybe it would be possible to add this behaviour by intergrating special C Code manipulating the stack.
Saying this a have only a superficial knowledge of the interpreter, maybe someone can point to serious sideeffects which strictly disallow this approach.
|
|---|
| Replies are listed 'Best First'. | |
|---|---|
|
Re^3: Callstack manipulation?
by plobsing (Friar) on Nov 02, 2008 at 04:02 UTC | |
by LanX (Saint) on Nov 02, 2008 at 12:57 UTC | |
by LanX (Saint) on Nov 03, 2008 at 01:53 UTC |