Adam Turoff wrote:
> when dealing with threaded bytecode is that the threading specifically
> eliminates the indirection in the name of speed.
Yes. Chaim was saying that for the functions that need indirection,
they could use stubs. You don't need to guess in advance which ones
need indirection b
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Specific example where you can't:
> on ARM, the branch instructions (B and BL) are PC relative, but only have
> a 24 bit offset field. The address space is (now) 32 bit, so there's parts
> you can't reach without
David Mitchell wrote:
> Well, I was assuming that there would be *a* numeric class in scope
> - as defined be the innermost lexical 'use foo'.
And that numeric class would remove int and num from the scope?
> I assumed that Perl wouldn't be clever enough to know about all available
> numberic ty
On Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 09:45:55AM -0700, Steve Fink wrote:
> Hey, it's finally a use for the 'use less space/use less time' pragma!
> 'use less space' means share the bytecode and either do computed jumps
> or unshared lookup tables; 'use less time' means fixup unshared bytecode
> at load time (o
--- Chaim Frenkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "BS" == Benjamin Stuhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> BS> 1. Bytecode can just be mmap'ed or read in, no
> playing
> BS> around with relocations on loading or games with RVAs
> BS> (which can't be used anyway, since variable RVAs vary
> based
On Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 06:23:20PM +0100, Tom Hughes wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Specific example where you can't:
> > on ARM, the branch instructions (B and BL) are PC relative, but only have
> > a 24 bit offset field. The a
> > Joshua N Pritikin writes:
> > : http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/python/2000/10/04/stackless-intro.html
> >
> > Perl 5 is already stackless in that sense, though we never implemented
> > continuations. The main impetus for going stackless was to make it
> > possible to implement a Forth-styl
> "BS" == Benjamin Stuhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
BS> My primary goal (it may not have come accross strongly
BS> enough) in this proposal was sharing bytecode between
BS> threads even with an ithreadsish model (variables are
BS> thread-private, except when explicitly shared). This
BS> requ
> "KF" == Ken Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
KF> Adam Turoff wrote:
>> when dealing with threaded bytecode is that the threading specifically
>> eliminates the indirection in the name of speed.
KF> Yes. Chaim was saying that for the functions that need indirection,
KF> they could use stubs.
Uri Guttman wrote:
> > "DS" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> DS> So unless we come up with something concrete, the goals are:
>
> DS> 1) A nebulous ~10% faster
> DS> 2) Faster in the things that annoy Dan the most
> DS> 3) Faster in the OO bits the folks upstairs from me u
> "BS" == Benjamin Stuhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
BS> 1. Bytecode can just be mmap'ed or read in, no playing
BS> around with relocations on loading or games with RVAs
BS> (which can't be used anyway, since variable RVAs vary based
BS> on what's been allocated or freed earlier).
(What is a
On Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 11:45:54AM -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
> I vaguly can see a TIL that uses machine code linkage (real machine code
> jumps) that perhaps could use relative addressing as not needing
> relocation. But I'm not sure that all architectures support long enough
> relative jumps/ca
At 05:02 PM 10/25/00 +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
>On Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 11:45:54AM -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
> > I vaguly can see a TIL that uses machine code linkage (real machine code
> > jumps) that perhaps could use relative addressing as not needing
> > relocation. But I'm not sure that
On Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 12:05:22PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 05:02 PM 10/25/00 +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> >On Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 11:45:54AM -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
> > > I vaguly can see a TIL that uses machine code linkage (real machine code
> > > jumps) that perhaps could use rel
On Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 12:28:55PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 05:21 PM 10/25/00 +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> >"fixup sections" sound horribly like something I've read in association
> >with a.out or ELF shared libraries. (I forget which)
>
> Both, though they may call it something else. As
At 05:21 PM 10/25/00 +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
>On Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 12:05:22PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > At 05:02 PM 10/25/00 +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> > >On Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 11:45:54AM -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
> > > > I vaguly can see a TIL that uses machine code linkage (
Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Numeric constants will probably fall into two classes--those perl's parser
> knows about and can convert to, and those it doesn't and just treats as
> strings.
I'm really excited to see what magic Larry is going to cook up for
extending the lexer and parser. His talk made it
Hey, it's finally a use for the 'use less space/use less time' pragma!
'use less space' means share the bytecode and either do computed jumps
or unshared lookup tables; 'use less time' means fixup unshared bytecode
at load time (or page fault time, or whatever). :-)
> "AT" == Adam Turoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
AT> On Tue, Oct 24, 2000 at 10:55:29AM -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
>> I don't see it.
>>
>> I would find it extremely akward to allow
>>
>> thread 1:*foo = \&one_foo;
>> thread 2:*foo = \&other_foo;
>> [...]
>>
>> copy the &foo bod
At 12:48 PM 10/25/00 -0400, Ken Fox wrote:
>If Larry does what I'm hoping, we'll be able to extend the lexer to
>recognize new number formats and not have to kludge things together with
>strings. Am I reading too much into the Atlanta talk or is that your
>take on it too?
I think you're likely ri
20 matches
Mail list logo
