> You're conflating dead object detection with GC. Don't--the two things are
> separate and if you think of them that way it makes things clearer.
>
> ># Well, if we use a copying GC, but never move the PMC,
> ># then how are we
> ># freeing these PMCs?
>
> The dead object detection phase notes
Simon Cozens wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 05, 2001 at 02:08:21PM -0500, Ken Fox wrote:
> > we'd be a lot better inlining some of the PMC methods as ops instead of
> > trig functions. ;)
>
> Won't work. We can't predict what kind of PMCs will be coming our way, let
> alone what vtables they'll use, let al
..
Index: Makefile.in
===
RCS file: /home/perlcvs/parrot/Makefile.in,v
retrieving revision 1.43
diff -u -r1.43 Makefile.in
--- Makefile.in 2001/11/02 12:11:15 1.43
+++ Makefile.in 2001/11/06 02:38:03
@@ -130,7 +130,7 @@
http://www.25hoursaday.com/StoringAndQueryingXML.html#samplexpath
like plan9, Xpath uses slash instead of dot to get inside things.
Note the slicing syntax.
Quoting Dan Sugalski ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> At 11:54 AM 11/5/2001 -0800, Steve Fink wrote:
> > > >It's pretty
> > > >much functional, including reOneof. Still, these could be useful
> > > >internal functions... *ponder*
> > >
> > > I was thinking that the places they could come in really handy fo
On Mon, 5 Nov 2001, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 12:23 AM 11/5/2001 -0800, Brent Dax wrote:
> >Michael L Maraist:
[reordered for clarity]
>
> > But I hear that we're not relying on an
> > integer for
> > reference counting (as with perl5), and instead are mostly
> > dependant on the
> > GC.
>
> You'
On Mon, 5 Nov 2001, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 10:24 AM 11/5/2001 -0300, Daniel Grunblatt wrote:
> >Right, now, what about the audience with an operative system with gcc
> >3.0.2?
>
> What about 'em? They build the same way everyone else does.
>
> Gearing code specifically towards the quirks of a
At 12:23 AM 11/5/2001 -0800, Brent Dax wrote:
>Michael L Maraist:
># On Sunday 04 November 2001 02:39 pm, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>My understanding is that we will pretty much only allocate PMCs out of
>the arena and any buffers are allocated out of the GC region. (I could
>be wrong, of course...)
T
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(James Mastros) wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 01:38:58PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > Currently, I don't want to promise back before Win98, though if Win95
> > is no different from a programming standpoint (I have no idea if it
> > is) the
Sets defines to ensure that post Win95 functions are not defined in
windows.h.
Richard
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
win32_h_WINVER.diff
Description: Binary data
At 11:54 AM 11/5/2001 -0800, Steve Fink wrote:
> > >It's pretty
> > >much functional, including reOneof. Still, these could be useful
> > >internal functions... *ponder*
> >
> > I was thinking that the places they could come in really handy for were
> > character classes. \w, \s, and \d are poten
> >It's pretty
> >much functional, including reOneof. Still, these could be useful
> >internal functions... *ponder*
>
> I was thinking that the places they could come in really handy for were
> character classes. \w, \s, and \d are potentially a lot faster this way,
> 'specially if you throw
On Mon, Nov 05, 2001 at 02:08:21PM -0500, Ken Fox wrote:
> we'd be a lot better inlining some of the PMC methods as ops instead of
> trig functions. ;)
Won't work. We can't predict what kind of PMCs will be coming our way, let
alone what vtables they'll use, let alone what methods those vtables w
Dan Sugalski wrote:
> We might want to have one fast and potentially big loop (switch or computed
> goto) with all the alternate (tracing, Safe, and debugging) loops use the
> indirect function dispatch so we're not wedging another 250K per loop or
> something.
Absolutely. There's no gain from
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 08:48 PM 11/4/2001 -0500, James Mastros wrote:
> >For that matter, why are we avoiding filenames with more then one dot? It'd
> >be easy to teach a Makefile to get core.ops.c from core.ops; much harder to
> >te
At 06:03 PM 11/4/2001 -0500, James Mastros wrote:
>On Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 01:47:44PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > I've not made any promises as to what type of GC system we'll use. I'm
> > gearing things towards a copying collector, but I'm also trying to make
> > sure we don't lock ourselves o
On Monday 05 November 2001 09:46 am, Daniel Grunblatt wrote:
> This is exactly what I'm trying to avoid, this is a big overhead, because
> if I'm understaing right you are suggesting to add and if here, right?
> well imagine that if made everytime even when we are not tracing.
>
> Unless that what
You already got them on my last patch posted yesterday, but now I'm
working in a new version which will have nicer code, in that patch I
didn't add an if to the Makefile, because I thought that it is not
portable, but Brent Dax told me that I can use it, what do you think about
this? should we kee
At 05:32 PM 11/5/2001 +, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Mon, Nov 05, 2001 at 11:46:50AM -0300, Daniel Grunblatt wrote:
> > The point is that,in my opinion, we don't really need to be faster than
> > now when tracing, etc but we DO have to be faster when running like:
>
>I agree completely. I'd like t
On Mon, Nov 05, 2001 at 11:46:50AM -0300, Daniel Grunblatt wrote:
> The point is that,in my opinion, we don't really need to be faster than
> now when tracing, etc but we DO have to be faster when running like:
I agree completely. I'd like to see configure-time options for the
runops loop.
--
"
I'm definetly having a hard time trying to make my self clear, sorry guys
I'm still learning english :( .
The point is that,in my opinion, we don't really need to be faster than
now when tracing, etc but we DO have to be faster when running like:
# ./test_prog mops.pbc
On Mon, 5 Nov 2001, Bre
Daniel Grunblatt:
# No, I totally disagree on that if I do that we will lose the
# speed gained
# before, I still don't know why we can't stay we the actual
# dispatch method
# when tracing, etc and use computed goto when running without
# any command
# line switch?
If we enable tracing with comp
No, I totally disagree on that if I do that we will lose the speed gained
before, I still don't know why we can't stay we the actual dispatch method
when tracing, etc and use computed goto when running without any command
line switch?
Daniel Grunblatt.
On Mon, 5 Nov 2001, Brent Dax wrote:
> Dan
At 10:24 AM 11/5/2001 -0300, Daniel Grunblatt wrote:
>Right, now, what about the audience with an operative system with gcc
>3.0.2?
What about 'em? They build the same way everyone else does.
Gearing code specifically towards the quirks of a specific compiler
version's usually a good way to get
Daniel Grunblatt:
# On Mon, 5 Nov 2001, Brent Dax wrote:
#
# > Michael Fischer:
# > # On Nov 04, Brent Dax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> took up a keyboard
# > # and banged out
# > # > Michael Fischer:
# > # > # In the goto case, we spin. And perhaps I am broken there. End
# > # > # really wants to return,
Angel Faus:
# ># I have been uncapable of expressing nested groups or
# ># alternation with your model, and I would say that this
# ># is because the engine needs some way to save not only
# ># the index into the string, but also the point of the
# ># regex where it can branch on a backtack.
#
# >
Right, now, what about the audience with an operative system with gcc
3.0.2? Can't we ship compiled versions for every plataform/operative
system?
By the way, the patch that I sent is already 2.5 - 3 times faster on *BSD
Daniel Grunblatt.
On Mon, 5 Nov 2001, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 10:16 AM 1
Hi Brent,
># I have been uncapable of expressing nested groups or
># alternation with your model, and I would say that this
># is because the engine needs some way to save not only
># the index into the string, but also the point of the
># regex where it can branch on a backtack.
>I've been a bi
At 06:27 PM 11/4/2001 -0500, James Mastros wrote:
>On Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 01:38:58PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > Currently, I don't want to promise back before Win98, though if Win95
> is no
> > different from a programming standpoint (I have no idea if it is) then
> > that's fine too. Win 3.
At 10:16 AM 11/5/2001 -0500, Sam Tregar wrote:
>On Mon, 5 Nov 2001, Simon Cozens wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 06:22:59PM -0300, Daniel Grunblatt wrote:
> > > Do you want me to give you an account in my linux machine where I have
> > > install gcc 3.0.2 so that you see it?
> >
> > How much
At 08:48 PM 11/4/2001 -0500, James Mastros wrote:
>For that matter, why are we avoiding filenames with more then one dot? It'd
>be easy to teach a Makefile to get core.ops.c from core.ops; much harder to
>tell it how to get core_ops.c. (Note that in the current Makefile, we
>special-case it.)
S
On Mon, 5 Nov 2001, Simon Cozens wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 06:22:59PM -0300, Daniel Grunblatt wrote:
> > Do you want me to give you an account in my linux machine where I have
> > install gcc 3.0.2 so that you see it?
>
> How much effort do we want to put into something that shows a speedu
On Mon, 5 Nov 2001, Brent Dax wrote:
> Michael Fischer:
> # On Nov 04, Brent Dax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> took up a keyboard
> # and banged out
> # > Michael Fischer:
> # > # In the goto case, we spin. And perhaps I am broken there. End
> # > # really wants to return, not just set the pc, but I hadn
On Sat, 2001-11-03 at 22:11, Gregor N. Purdy wrote:
> Brian --
>
> > > None of these are issues with the approach I've been working on /
> > > advocating. I'm hoping we can avoid these altogether.
> > >
> >
> > I think this is a cool concept, but it seems like a lot of overhead with
> > the str
Simon and Jeff --
> > This (rather large) set of patches adds the ability for parrot to use
> > +interpreter->profile = (INTVAL
>*)mem_sys_allocate((core_numops+obscure_numops+vtable_numops) * sizeof(INTVAL));
>
> Nice idea, but I'm afraid I'm not convinced that this is sufficie
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Daniel Grunblatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As you can see the problem is still that you are not using gcc 3.0.2,
> please take 10' minutes and compile gcc 3.0.2, I will now compile 3.0.1
> just to see what happens.
I have been having a very hard time bel
A lot, since it's the lastone, and as I said in a previous mail, we can
let everyone download binaries, but, read the previos mail sent by Tom
Hughes there IS a speed up any way on the older version, why shouldn't we
implement this anyway?.
Daniel Grunblatt.
On Mon, 5 Nov 2001, Simon Cozens wrot
As you can see the problem is still that you are not using gcc 3.0.2,
please take 10' minutes and compile gcc 3.0.2, I will now compile 3.0.1
just to see what happens.
For the compiled version I attached a diff between the current mops.c and
the patch mops.c, enlighten me on how can that differen
On Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 06:22:59PM -0300, Daniel Grunblatt wrote:
> Do you want me to give you an account in my linux machine where I have
> install gcc 3.0.2 so that you see it?
How much effort do we want to put into something that shows a speedup
on one particular version of one particular comp
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Daniel Grunblatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do you want me to give you an account in my linux machine where I have
> install gcc 3.0.2 so that you see it?
I'm not sure that will achieve anything - it's not that I don't
believe you, it's just that I'm not
On Mon, Nov 05, 2001 at 12:44:38AM -0500, Jeff wrote:
> This (rather large) set of patches adds the ability for parrot to use
> +interpreter->profile = (INTVAL
>*)mem_sys_allocate((core_numops+obscure_numops+vtable_numops) * sizeof(INTVAL));
Nice idea, but I'm afraid I'm not conv
Zach Lipton sent the following bits through the ether:
> Is there any way to round this, or at least chop the 0's off the end?
Right. I'd just like to clear this up completely. The N registers are
for numerics (well, ok, floating point) and the I registers are for
integers. Currently, quite a bi
Zach Lipton:
# I'm working on learning some parrot asm, but if I write
# something like this:
#
# set N0,2
# set N1,2
# add N3, N0, N1
# print N3
#
#
# I get:
#
# 4.00
#
# Is there any way to round this, or at least chop the 0's off the end?
In this case at least, you could convert N3 to an I
Michael L Maraist:
# On Sunday 04 November 2001 02:39 pm, Dan Sugalski wrote:
# > At 08:32 PM 11/4/2001 +0100, Benoit Cerrina wrote:
# > > > There will be a mechanism to register PMCs with the
# interpreter to note
# > > > they're pointed to by something that the interpreter
# can't reach. (For
#
Michael Fischer:
# On Nov 04, Brent Dax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> took up a keyboard
# and banged out
# > Michael Fischer:
# > # In the goto case, we spin. And perhaps I am broken there. End
# > # really wants to return, not just set the pc, but I hadn't thought
# > # of a clever way to do that corner c
45 matches
Mail list logo
