On Thursday 28 February 2002 00:17, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> On Wednesday 27 February 2002 23:34, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> > I did a graphical mapping of the DOD and GC calls, and the GC pattern
> > was interesting. (Indicative of a leak. I'm going to patch the output
> > to show a generation
On Wednesday 27 February 2002 23:34, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> I did a graphical mapping of the DOD and GC calls, and the GC pattern was
> interesting. (Indicative of a leak. I'm going to patch the output to
> show a generation loop, and then post and interpret.)
Attached (hopefully) is a one-l
At 11:34 PM -0500 2/27/02, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
>On Wednesday 27 February 2002 20:57, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>> I presume the ### lines were the two that took longest, at 21 seconds
>> each, more or less?
>
>Yeah, as flagged by WorkShop.
Gotcha. Damned expensive, so we'll have to see what we ca
On Wednesday 27 February 2002 20:57, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> I presume the ### lines were the two that took longest, at 21 seconds
> each, more or less?
Yeah, as flagged by WorkShop.
>
> I think some sort of "X full memory allocations per collection"
> scheme would be a good thing, and tuning the
At 8:54 PM -0500 2/27/02, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
>On Wednesday 27 February 2002 20:19, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
>> Yowza, you aren't kidding.
>>
>> mark_buffers_unused() and free_unused_buffers() are a minute each in a
> > three minute-and-change run.
>
>I'm guessing you're overiterating, but I
At 8:19 PM -0500 2/27/02, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
>Yowza, you aren't kidding.
Nope. :(
>mark_buffers_unused() and free_unused_buffers() are a minute each in
>a three minute-and-change run.
That's a good sign I'm doing something wrong. I'm not sure what,
though actually collecting would be my
On Wednesday 27 February 2002 20:19, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> Yowza, you aren't kidding.
>
> mark_buffers_unused() and free_unused_buffers() are a minute each in a
> three minute-and-change run.
I'm guessing you're overiterating, but I haven't found where yet.
--
Bryan C. Warnock
[EMAIL PROTEC
Yowza, you aren't kidding.
mark_buffers_unused() and free_unused_buffers() are a minute each in a three
minute-and-change run.
Here's the SPARC disassembly of the heaviest parts (the for loop overhead was 18
seconds each):
89. /* Tentatively unused, u
At 7:39 PM -0500 2/27/02, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
>Index: MANIFEST
Applied, thanks.
--
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 11:07 PM -0500 2/24/02, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
>The pod version of PDD 0 in CVS seems to have several chunks missing out
>of it, too. This patch is simply an administrative patch, with the
>differences between my last version, and the one currently in there.
>There will be a forthcoming patch
Index: MANIFEST
===
RCS file: /home/perlcvs/parrot/MANIFEST,v
retrieving revision 1.119
diff -u -r1.119 MANIFEST
--- MANIFEST25 Feb 2002 22:58:16 - 1.119
+++ MANIFEST28 Feb 2002 00:41:11 -
@@ -262,6 +262,10 @@
te
Okay, we now trace and collect all string buffers. No PMCs, so memory
hanging exclusively off PMCs, and buffers hanging exclusively off
PMCs, will be unconditionally and unceremoniously corrupted.
Other than that it's working pretty well, if inefficiently. :)
--
On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 04:24:48PM -0600, Garrett Goebel wrote:
> From: Allison Randal
>
> Not just some value external to the switch, but the value in $_.
>
> I now see the DWIM aspect. Thanks BTW.
>
> But how often will people have non- C statements within a C
> scope that'll need the special
Simon Cozens
On Tue, Feb 26, 2002 at 11:17:55AM +, Alex Gough wrote:
> Yes, at some point allowing 10**2, is just silly,
> and I doubt the potentional applications are numerous enough to
> warrant trying it. So long as we're clear about what the limits are,
about 10**98 particles in t
Dang... why isn't you see so many more obvious errors, the moment after you
click send?
From: Garrett Goebel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> or without the special case:
>
> $hi = 'hello';
> $x = 'burt';
> for $hi -> $y {
> given {
> when /burt/ { print "Go Away" };
default { print
From: Allison Randal
> Garrett Goebel wrote:
> >
> > Why does C's EXPR pay attention to the topicalizer
> > regardless of associated variable?
> >
> > Why introduce the special case?
>
> Why? Because it's oh-so dwim. Think about it, if you've just typed a
>
> given $x { ...
> or
>
Okay, a copying collector for buffers is now in place and committed.
Works pretty well, though the fact that we never mark any buffers as
unused does tend to slow things down a bit. I'm working on the
tracing liveness bits now, so those'll go in soon.
Snag and enjoy. And read PDD 9--I'm going
On Wed, 2002-02-27 at 14:07, Simon Cozens wrote:
> I know some people have been talking about rewriting the assembler; I've
> had some more thoughts on this over the past couple of days.
>
> First, I think that our assembler is going to be a reference implementation
> for those producing bytecod
From: Brent Dax [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Garrett Goebel:
> # Larry Wall in Apocalypse 4 writes:
> # > this special rule only applies to constructs that take a
> # > block (that is, a closure) as their last (or only) argument.
> # > Operators like sort and map are unaffected. However, certain
>
At 11:45 AM -0800 2/27/02, Steve Fink wrote:
>
>[Simon/Dan: can I check in my regex compiler under languages/regex?]
Yes.
--
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 07:07:26PM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
> Granted, these components will share some library code, such as that to
> parse out a line of assembly source, but I think that specialized elements
> working on text is the way to go here.
>
> The real advantage of this method, othe
On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 10:11:13AM -0800, Austin Hastings wrote:
>
> > C is a conditional like C, not a topicalizer.
>
> Right, it's a topicalizee, the victim of topicalization. And so it uses
> $_ or $x or $! or whatever the current topic is.
i.e. a "defaulting construct" or "topic sensitive k
I know some people have been talking about rewriting the assembler; I've
had some more thoughts on this over the past couple of days.
First, I think that our assembler is going to be a reference implementation
for those producing bytecode-emitting compilers. It does not need to be
fast, but it d
Garrett Goebel:
# Larry Wall in Apocalypse 4 writes:
# > this special rule only applies to constructs that take a
# > block (that is, a closure) as their last (or only) argument.
# > Operators like sort and map are unaffected. However, certain
# > constructs that used to be in the statement class
--- Allison Randal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm still not convinced of your basic point, that it would be a good
> thing to have C aliasing $_. Variations on whether it does it
> automatically or at my request and how don't change the fundamental
> concept. C is a conditional like C, not a to
On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 10:32:24AM -0600, Garrett Goebel wrote:
>
> Why does C's EXPR pay attention to the topicalizer regardless of
> associated variable?
>
> Why introduce the special case? Especially when consistency and
> simplification seem to be a strong undercurrent in Perl6? I'm curious
--- Garrett Goebel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Speaking of which, you forgot your trailing semicolon
> for the C expression's final closure/block.
I'll claim that when, like if, shouldn't need one. (I'd also normally
use multiple lines, but I'm trying to conserve newlines... :-)
> Why does C'
On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 08:02:08AM -0800, Austin Hastings wrote:
>
> BTW, C doesn't alias $_ always. That's why things like the example
> below are possible.
Yes. C and C will only alias $_ when they are not aliasing a
named variable.
> Hmm. Suppose we force C to alias $_, but give the coder o
--- Austin Hastings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- Garrett Goebel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Larry Wall wrote:
> > > I think the switch statement will have to recognize any
> > > Class::Name known at compile time, and force it to call
> > > $!.isa(Class::Name).
> >
> > Don't you mean the c
--- Garrett Goebel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Larry Wall wrote:
> > I think the switch statement will have to recognize any
> > Class::Name known at compile time, and force it to call
> > $!.isa(Class::Name).
>
> Don't you mean the case/when statement? Wouldn't you want the
> following to
> wor
From: Garrett Goebel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Speaking of which, you forgot your trailing semicolon for the
> C expression's final closure/block.
s/expression/statement/
Larry Wall in Apocalypse 4 writes:
> this special rule only applies to constructs that take a
> block (that is, a closure) as their last (or only) argument.
> Operators like sort and map are unaffected. However, certain
> constructs that used to be in the statement class may become
> expression co
--- Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> : More questions on downwards binding,
> :
> : > for @foo -> $a, $b { # two at a time
> : > ...
> : > }
> :
> : Interpretation #1:
> : for @foo[0..$foo:2] -> $a,
> : @foo[1..$foo:2] -> $b
> : { ... }
>
Larry Wall wrote:
> I think the switch statement will have to recognize any
> Class::Name known at compile time, and force it to call
> $!.isa(Class::Name).
Don't you mean the case/when statement? Wouldn't you want the following to
work:
for @obj {
when Dog { ... }
when Cat { ... }
}
From: Austin Hastings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> for @A {
> for @B -> $x {
> when /a/ $_ -> $a { s/a/b/; ... $a ...; }
> }
> }
>
> Once we get inside the curlies, $_ is aliased to the localized var for
> the C (in this case, $x).
I went back and read the Apocolypse 4: RFC 022. I may
It's amazing what a night will do. See bottom.
--- Allison Randal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2002 at 02:20:48PM -0800, Brent Dax wrote:
> > Austin Hastings:
> > #
> > # Which, then, would you like:
> > #
> > # To implicitly localize $_, losing access to an outer version,
> > # o
Bryan C. Warnock:
# On Tuesday 26 February 2002 22:17, you wrote:
# > How is this the case? STRING ** and Parrot_String * are equivalent.
# > You can use & on both a STRING * and a Parrot_String to get
# a STRING**
# > (a.k.a. a Parrot_String *). I don't see where the problem is.
#
# Ah, except
On Tuesday 26 February 2002 22:17, you wrote:
> How is this the case? STRING ** and Parrot_String * are equivalent.
> You can use & on both a STRING * and a Parrot_String to get a STRING**
> (a.k.a. a Parrot_String *). I don't see where the problem is.
Ah, except that you had a different typede
39 matches
Mail list logo
