On Fri, Jun 21, 2002 at 06:22:40PM -0400, Melvin Smith wrote:
> At 10:22 PM 6/21/2002 +0200, Jerome Vouillon wrote:
> >Ok. Then, you should do the converse to what you are mentionning in
> >your patch: instead of inlining a context in the interpreter structure
> >(Parrot_Interp), you should add a
At 10:22 PM 6/21/2002 +0200, Jerome Vouillon wrote:
>On Fri, Jun 21, 2002 at 02:33:33PM -0400, Melvin Smith wrote:
> > Now, if you look at it and say we can do a "lightweight"
> > interpreter, I think that is what I'm trying to accomplish, but I'm
> > calling it Parrot_Context.
>
>Ok. Then, you s
On Fri, Jun 21, 2002 at 02:33:33PM -0400, Melvin Smith wrote:
> Now, if you look at it and say we can do a "lightweight"
> interpreter, I think that is what I'm trying to accomplish, but I'm
> calling it Parrot_Context.
Ok. Then, you should do the converse to what you are mentionning in
your pat
At 07:57 PM 6/21/2002 +0200, Jerome Vouillon wrote:
>On Fri, Jun 21, 2002 at 12:49:27PM -0400, Melvin Smith wrote:
> > >- Each co-routine should probably have its own interpreter.
> >
> > I'm not sure about this one. I think we can accomplish it without
> > the full overhead of a new interpreter.
On Fri, Jun 21, 2002 at 12:49:27PM -0400, Melvin Smith wrote:
> >- Each co-routine should probably have its own interpreter.
>
> I'm not sure about this one. I think we can accomplish it without
> the full overhead of a new interpreter.
I don't understand. It should not be much more expansive t
At 06:34 PM 6/21/2002 +0200, Jerome Vouillon wrote:
>On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 12:26:11AM -0400, Melvin Smith wrote:
> > Given that it seems capturing and restoring a context is the most
> > expensive part, should we make default routines lightweight (execute
> > on caller stack rather than getting
On Fri, 21 Jun 2002, Jerome Vouillon wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 12:26:11AM -0400, Melvin Smith wrote:
> > Given that it seems capturing and restoring a context is the most
> > expensive part, should we make default routines lightweight (execute
> > on caller stack rather than getting their
On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 12:26:11AM -0400, Melvin Smith wrote:
> Given that it seems capturing and restoring a context is the most
> expensive part, should we make default routines lightweight (execute
> on caller stack rather than getting their own) and only make
> continuations and co-routines ta
