|
|
|
| Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 04:34 PM EDT |
Let's see. Suppose that for resolving the symbolic reference we need to lookup
information in a balanced binary tree. Suppose that the keys for the lookup is
the string text so we need to do string comparisons during the lookup.
Scenario 1: the string for a symbolic reference is stored inline in the byte
code. The resolution compares this string with the entries in the binary tree
during lookup.
Scenario 2: the string is stored outside of the byte code. A pointer to the
string is what is found inline. The resolution must follow the pointer to get
the string and then we may compare it with the entries in the trees during
lookup.
In your theory scenario 1 would infringe but not scenario 2 because scenario 1
uses immediate addressing while scenario 2 uses indirection.
Then let's assume that the binary try uses the addresses of the strings instead
of the string themselves as keys. A lookup doesn't do a string compare. It does
a numerical comparison on the addresses.
Scenario 3: The address is stored inline in the byte code. The resolution will
not follow the indirection to find the string. It will use the address directly
for the lookup.
In this scenario 3, according to your theory the patent is infringed because
immediate addressing is used.
It appears to me that this is a result where reasonable minds may disagree. Why
having to follow the pointer to get the string somehow makes the reference not a
symbolic reference? This is not that different from the other scenario. It not
self-evident to me that the notion of symbolic reference is connected to
addressing modes.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
