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
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Jun 28, 2022. It is now read-only.
This would require modifying the fall-through of a function call to always be a kRequestBlockInFuture, and would also mean that if any fragment's stack is invalid, then all fragment stacks are invalid. The benefits would be that it makes VRs slightly less restricted, and would potentially mean less added instructions (and code!) because I wouldn't need to partition fragments anymore. I think this is definitely worth investigating.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Note: The new "headless" compensation blocks will have to be actual fragment boundaries. Fall-throughs of system/interrupt/function calls will have to be implicitly considered headless.
Sign up for freeto subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
This would require modifying the fall-through of a function call to always be a
kRequestBlockInFuture
, and would also mean that if any fragment's stack is invalid, then all fragment stacks are invalid. The benefits would be that it makes VRs slightly less restricted, and would potentially mean less added instructions (and code!) because I wouldn't need to partition fragments anymore. I think this is definitely worth investigating.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: