On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 06:14:52AM -0700, Sean O'Rourke wrote: > On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, Leopold Toetsch wrote: > > > > [...] Nobody answered, if we need another > > Sub class implementing the old invoke/ret scheme ... > > I'd say "no". P6C is now compiling to an obsolete architecture. > While we should all step back and be impressed at how well Intel has > maintained backward compatibility in the x86, there's no particular > reason we should do so ourselves. Rather, someone (me) needs to port > P6C to the new machine.
/me shows ignorance yet again. For those of us who are not hardware types...what is "the new machine"? The Itanium? Does that really have enough market penetration at this point to be a worthy target? Or is the idea that, by the time Parrot is finished, it WILL have massive market penetration? > > > Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Whee! My first anniversary! > > > > Congrats and thanks for your great summaries. > > Seconded. Thirded. Although the doings of the internals list fascinate me, they are usually totally over my head, so I long ago unsub'd. It's great to be able to follow along via the summaries. --Dks
