Attached is a FAQ I wrote up over a couple days to hopefully prepare for any
TPC fallout that might occur. (and FAQs are a good thing, from what I hear).
Anyways, any thoughts on where it should go, how it should be reworked to
fit in with other documentation, etc would be appreciated. Just looki
As im not that familiar with spamassasin maybe someone could help me
stop getting my mail tagged as spam when mailing patches..
/Josef
On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> If I thought anyone'd do control flow with it, I'd have a version of
> the op for that, but I don't think we're going to see that, and perl
> doesn't do it, so...
Okay, writing this email has convinced me that maybe we don't need these
ops. If Perl's go
At 07:57 PM 7/29/2002 -0700, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > Just out of curiosity, I presume the (rather abysmal) perl 6 numbers
> > include time to generate the assembly and assemble it--have you tried
> > running the generated code by itself as a test? (At the
At 8:13 PM -0700 7/29/02, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
>> In the mean time, someone can go ahead and implement the cmps and
>> cmpi ops to do string and integer compares respectively.
>
>Do you mean {gt,ge,eq,ne,le,lt}{s,n} conditional branches, or something
>
On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> In the mean time, someone can go ahead and implement the cmps and
> cmpi ops to do string and integer compares respectively.
Do you mean {gt,ge,eq,ne,le,lt}{s,n} conditional branches, or something
like "cmps Ix, Py, Pz"? Also, would num-comparisons be
On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Just out of curiosity, I presume the (rather abysmal) perl 6 numbers
> include time to generate the assembly and assemble it--have you tried
> running the generated code by itself as a test? (At the moment, the
> assembler's rather slow)
It's mostly the
At 10:44 AM +0200 7/28/02, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
>2) Some Mops numbers, all on i386/linux Athlon 800, slightly shortend:
>(»make mops« in parrot root)
Just out of curiosity, I presume the (rather abysmal) perl 6 numbers
include time to generate the assembly and assemble it--have you tried
runnin
I thing I forgot to tell is that I also have added a constant pool which
could be usefull for the ARM too, it's on my local tree,I don't know
exactly when I'm going to finish it.
Daniel Grunblatt.
On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> Here's a very minimal ARM jit framework. It does work (at least as far as
> passing all 10 t/op/basic.t subtests, and running mops.pbc)
Cool, I have also been playing with ARM but your approach is in better
shape. (I'll send you a copy of what I got h
# New Ticket Created by Jarkko Hietaniemi
# Please include the string: [perl #15805]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=15805 >
Please find attached some very minor tweaks to keep the Tru64 compiler
content and
# New Ticket Created by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
# Please include the string: [perl #15802]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=15802 >
I started working on implementing a Tuple pmc as someone else suggested as a good
I think you forgot to attach the patch...
Simon
# New Ticket Created by Jonathan Sillito
# Please include the string: [perl #15800]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=15800 >
The attached patch implements a set of lexical ops. Lexical pads are
implemented as
I can't remember if I'm supposed to e-mail details of this to perl6-internals,
but I've just committed this:
$ cvs diff -pu test_main.c
Index: test_main.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/public/parrot/test_main.c,v
retrieving revision 1.54
diff -
Here's a very minimal ARM jit framework. It does work (at least as far as
passing all 10 t/op/basic.t subtests, and running mops.pbc)
As you can see from the patch all it does is implement the end and noop ops.
Everything else is being called. Interestingly, JITing like this is slower
than comput
# New Ticket Created by Angel Faus
# Please include the string: [perl #15797]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=15797 >
Hi,
I've made a patch for the regex engine, designed with the single goal
of seriously
And I'll be digging through the backlog of mail. On the top 'o the
list is keys, defining the extension mechanism, and the exception
infrastructure. We'll go from there.
In the mean time, someone can go ahead and implement the cmps and
cmpi ops to do string and integer compares respectively.
On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> [Maybe we should have a competition to suggest the most crazy three character
> operator - ie state your sequence of three characters (not necessarily ASCII,
> but it helps), state their name, and state their purpose (including whether
> listop, binop
How about (with a tip o' th' hat to DEK):
SWYM (Sympathize With Your Machinery)
-- Gregor
> [Maybe we should have a competition to suggest the most crazy
> three character
> operator - ie state your sequence of three characters (not
> necessarily ASCII,
> but it helps), state their name, and state their purpose
> (including whether
> listop, binop, uniop, precedence, associativity or w
At 10:45 AM 7/29/2002 +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
>[Maybe we should have a competition to suggest the most crazy three character
>operator - ie state your sequence of three characters (not necessarily ASCII,
>but it helps), state their name, and state their purpose (including whether
>listop, bin
On Sun, Jul 28, 2002 at 06:59:50PM -0700, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jul 2002, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 27, 2002 at 08:07:50PM -0700, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
> > > Whether plain cmp (as a vtable function or an op on PMCs) should be kept
> > > at all is questionable -- there's no w
23 matches
Mail list logo
