Would it make more sense to redefine opcode to be a uint8_t, rather than casting it?

We should probably make use_tracing an 8 bit unsigned integer as well.

Would it make more sense to redefine opcode to be a uint8_t, rather than casting it?

Yeah, I had considered that, it makes sense. I'll confirm that it has the same effect.

We should probably make use_tracing an 8 bit unsigned integer as well.

I don't see why -- it's not used in a similar switch AFAICT, and it's not cramped for space in its struct. I assume for most other operations the cost of loading an int and loading a byte is effectively the same, since the CPU has to load a whole cache line (32 or 64 bytes) anyway.

I don't believe this needs a news blurb.

I don't see why -- it's not used in a similar switch AFAICT, and it's not cramped for space in its struct. I assume for most other operations the cost of loading an int and loading a byte is effectively the same, since the CPU has to load a whole cache line (32 or 64 bytes) anyway.

The dispatch sequence includes opcode |= cframe.use_tracing.
If cframe.use_tracing is a 32 bit int, then the compiler needs to add a cast.
If it is the same type as opcode, it does not.

The dispatch sequence includes opcode |= cframe.use_tracing.
If cframe.use_tracing is a 32 bit int, then the compiler needs to add a cast.
If it is the same type as opcode, it does not.

Okay, I'll make that change.

@markshannon, please re-review. I confirmed that the switch still uses a single indirection (goto *(base + offset_table[opcode])). I also found that the opcode |= use_tracing is a single instruction (but maybe it always was one?).

Looks good to me