Andreas Rossberg
Andreas Rossberg
This PR is super-stale. Is it still relevant?
@Ms2ger, ping on this one.
Hm, I can't find this in the repo. @ericprud, is that a local change in your fork?
@ericprud, can you manually push to fix this?
Hm, interestingly, those notes also contain a (successful) poll that decided that "0xFF should be reserved prefix for when we run out" (of opcodes). That seems to mean something else...
I'm still a bit confused about what precisely we want to state and what guarantees that would actually imply. It sounds almost like "0xff is available to implementations until it...
It looks like there is nothing actionable on the spec side for this, closing.
That is all fine, but my earlier comments still stand: 1) Technically, the opcode currently _is_ illegal. Beyond that, it is not clear how the spec would be capable of...
I won't be able to attend the next meeting either, so just a quick reply. @eqrion: > If we wanted 0xFF to be illegal to use indefinitely and not just...
@eqrion: > By creating an instruction for it, the spec is creating a concept that users could actually write in the text format. They already can do that, in both...