goodbye bytecode, hello bitcode

I just checked in the final bits to switch us over from bytecode to bitcode. Old bytecode files will not work, but I expect this format to be stable going forward with the 2.x series of releases.

This new format has a number of advantages. In particular:

1. The files are smaller.
2. The reader takes about 2/3 the memory it did before.
3. The reader is about 1/2 the code size of the old reader.
4. We don't need to carry around bzip2 etc
5. The new format is *much* easier to keep stable going forward.

Please let me know if you run into any problems. Documentation of the file format is in the works. The bytecode support code is still in the tree, but isn't being built. Assuming no major problems, I will remove the old code tomorrow.

-Chris

Please let me know if you run into any problems. Documentation of the
file format is in the works. The bytecode support code is still in the
tree, but isn't being built. Assuming no major problems, I will remove
the old code tomorrow.

I am getting a missing 'lib/Archive' directory when making from an updated CVS.

Aaron

> Please let me know if you run into any problems. Documentation of the
> file format is in the works. The bytecode support code is still in the
> tree, but isn't being built. Assuming no major problems, I will remove
> the old code tomorrow.

I am getting a missing 'lib/Archive' directory when making from an updated
CVS.

When doing your update, use these options:

cvs update -ARPd

REid.

Did you use the -d flag when you performed a cvs update? If not, it won't discover new directories in the repository.

— Gordon

Thanks Reid. I should have squatted up on CVS a bit better.

Aaron