On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 07:01:01PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 10:08:24AM -0800, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
> > Neat - this is a fine approximate solution until we have real pbc
> > hashing, and *may* continue to be necessary even with hashing,
> > depending on whether we can
On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 10:08:24AM -0800, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 01:16:35PM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> > As of r10458 Parrot doesn't load_bytecode the same file [1] twice anymore.
>
> Neat - this is a fine approximate solution until we have real pbc
> hashing, and *
On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 01:16:35PM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> As of r10458 Parrot doesn't load_bytecode the same file [1] twice anymore.
Neat - this is a fine approximate solution until we have real pbc
hashing, and *may* continue to be necessary even with hashing,
depending on whether we ca
As of r10458 Parrot doesn't load_bytecode the same file [1] twice anymore.
That is:
load_bytecode 'foo.pir'
load_bytecode 'foo.pasm' # silently ignored
load_bytecode 'foo.pbc'# silently ignored
load_bytecode 'bar/foo.pir'# ok [2]
There is also an interface to query load
