From: Allison Randal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:51:52 +0200
The thing is, PIR doesn't respect the register numbers anyway (even in
the so-called "absolute" registers). So P33 in the PIR source may
compile down to P0, and P0 in the PIR source may compile down to
On Dec 11, 2007 8:43 AM, Joshua Isom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Parrot provides a calling convention, but does not, that I know of,
mandate that calling convention. In any computer, there are multiple
calling conventions used(often leading to a lack of interoperability,
but nevertheless
On Dec 11, 2007 8:43 AM, Joshua Isom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Dec 10, 2007, at 10:59 AM, Klaas-Jan Stol wrote:
>
> > In order to draw attention to this point, I changed the subject.
> >
> > Is there anybody who thinks the removal from PIR of $-less registers
> > ("absolute" or PASM regist
On Dec 10, 2007, at 10:59 AM, Klaas-Jan Stol wrote:
In order to draw attention to this point, I changed the subject.
Is there anybody who thinks the removal from PIR of $-less registers
("absolute" or PASM registers) should not be done?
kjs
Parrot provides a calling convention, but does no
In order to draw attention to this point, I changed the subject.
On Dec 9, 2007 10:10 PM, Allison Randal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Klaas-Jan wrote:
> >
> > There is of course the option of taking the current behavior as
> > "correct", effectively forgetting about this piece of the
> > specific
Klaas-Jan wrote:
There is of course the option of taking the current behavior as
"correct", effectively forgetting about this piece of the
specification.
I can, however, imagine a situation in which someone would want to do
manual register allocation (writing Parrot assembly) for
certain cases.
On Dec 8, 7:26 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chromatic) wrote:
> On Friday 07 December 2007 11:22:10 Klaas-Jan Stol wrote:
>
> > According to the spec, this is a bug.
>
> > Now, this isn't a big deal, because the semantics of the program aren't
> > changed. The only problem I can imagine is for embedders,
On Friday 07 December 2007 11:22:10 Klaas-Jan Stol wrote:
> According to the spec, this is a bug.
>
> Now, this isn't a big deal, because the semantics of the program aren't
> changed. The only problem I can imagine is for embedders, but I'm not sure
> if you can poke into parrot registers from a
# New Ticket Created by Klaas-Jan Stol
# Please include the string: [perl #48326]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=48326 >
ACcording to PDD19:
If you directly reference P99, Parrot will blindly allocate 100 r
