Re: Threads Design. A Win32 perspective.

> "NS" == Nigel Sandever <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: NS> ATOMICITY AND CRITICAL SECTIONS UG> that is what i mentioned above, disabling time slicing/ preemption when UG> desired. it is not just a win32 concept. hell, turning off interrupts UG> during interrupt handlers goes way back! r

Re: Threads Design. A Win32 perspective.

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 21:32:22 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Uri Guttman) wrote: UG> Uri Guttman NS> Nigel Sandever. (Mostly not reproduced here!) NS> REENTRANCY UG> this is true for c level threads but not necessarily true for VM level UG> threads. f the VM is atomic at its operation level and c

Re: IMCC debugging?

Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Does IMCC have any good debugging hooks inside it? I'm running into a > problem where one of my subs is thinking it's an old-style (params on > stack) sub That's very probably coming from comments before/inmidst .param directives. The parser currently does

Re: Problem during "make test"

At 11:52 AM + 1/2/04, Harry Jackson wrote: Dan Sugalski wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] pbin]$ gcc -v Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/2.96/specs gcc version 2.96 2731 (Red Hat Linux 7.2 2.96-108.1) Yeah, that was the one, unfortunately. Try disabling the JIT during configu

Enhancements for the debugger

As I studiously ignore all the thread threads (Ah, deadlines--gotta love 'em) I'm bumping into a number of things in the system as it currently stands that could use fixing/enhancement/rethinking. At the moment, the thing is the debugger, trace mode, and/or the compiler. First off, trace mode i

IMCC debugging?

Does IMCC have any good debugging hooks inside it? I'm running into a problem where one of my subs is thinking it's an old-style (params on stack) sub rather than a PDD03 compliant sub. Doesn't seem to matter where this thing appears (I've tried moving it) so there's something weird going on, b

[mhx-perl@gmx.net: Re: XS and strings]

Another thing to scan for Kwalitee? [probably quite hard] Nicholas Clark - Forwarded message from Marcus Holland-Moritz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe:

Re: cvs commit: parrot/src call_list.txt utils.c

Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Add in support for the T and L NCI types. (char pointer array and > long array) These should IMHO be no separate signatures, but be expressed in terms of the 'p' signature and use an appropriate {Un,}ManagedStruct PMC[1]. If we start passing all these

Re: Object system

Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I notice that ParrotObject only has [get|set]_integer_keyed. I assume > we intend to make those for the rest of the data types. Yep. Albeit before continuing here filling the blanks, I'd really like to have attribute naming/mangling clarified. The pmc doe

Re: threads and shared interpreter data structures

Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 3) a separate array for the JITed method stubs, which are per interpeter >and only if the platform can generate such stubs on the fly. Done now. JITted NCI methods are now enabled again but only i386 has the necessary interface code in jit/*. leo

Re: Problem during "make test"

Dan Sugalski wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] pbin]$ gcc -v Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/2.96/specs gcc version 2.96 2731 (Red Hat Linux 7.2 2.96-108.1) Yeah, that was the one, unfortunately. Try disabling the JIT during configuration and seeing if that takes care of the pro

Re: Patch submission gone missing?

> I didn't realize there was moderation. (How was spam getting through?) Spam was getting through because when I upgraded RT, I didn't re-insert some of my envelope massaging magic, which meant that spam was looking as if it was coming from a "valid" address, when it really wasn't. Once I re-inse

Re: Patch submission gone missing?

On Jan 1, 2004, at 11:31 PM, Robert Spier wrote: I submitted a patch yesterday to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and received the automated response (the ID is [perl #24789]), but it doesn't seem to have been forwarded to the mailing list. Is something up with the tracking system? Nothing is up. It's in the

Re: Patch submission gone missing?

> I submitted a patch yesterday to [EMAIL PROTECTED], > and received the automated response (the ID is [perl #24789]), but it > doesn't seem to have been forwarded to the mailing list. Is something > up with the tracking system? Nothing is up. It's in the moderation queue. The list moderator