Okay, this bunch of ops is a serious attempt at regular expressions. I
had a discussion with japhy on this in the Monastery
(http://www.perlmonks.org/index.pl?node_id=122784), and I've come up
with something flexible enough to actually (maybe) work. Attached is a
patch to modify core.ops and add
On Nov 04, Daniel Grunblatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> took up a keyboard and banged out
> First of all you miss typed:
> -if ($c{do_opt_t} eq 'goto' and $c{cc} !~ /gcc/i ) {
> +if ($c{do_op_t} eq 'goto' and $c{cc} !~ /cc/i ) {
hmm. Thats not what my diff has. Point is, if you chose
'goto', $c{cc} /isn'
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brent Dax) wrote:
> Richard J Cox:
> # Firstly, 8am code this morning builds on Win32 without
> # problem, other than
> # configure.pl not knowing that link is the linker (which
> # appears to be down
> # to ActiveState not knowing).
>
> Does it
Currently for a Win32 build WINVER is not being set, this leads to it
being set in Windef.h (included by Windows.h) to 0x0500, or "build for
Windows 2000".
This is OK, until (for whatever) reason a Win2k only API is called, at
which point the built exe will not run on earlier versions of Windo
Ok, thanks to Daniel Grunblatt for pointing out
the obvious mis-adjustment of #including...
That bit is fixed, and low, a whopping less-than-%10
improvement in speed with the switch() version of
DO_OP. Hmm.
OTOH, my implementation of goto, based on Paolo's post
back when, is clearly broken in so
The patch attached is courtesy of Richard J. Cox. It fixes the VC++
warnings about functions declared to return a value but not actually
returning one. I'll apply it in a couple hours if there aren't any
objections.
--Brent Dax
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Configure pumpking for Perl 6
When I take action
Yes, you are right on that, but that is only on linux, not on *BSD (where
I tried it). I still don't know why is these, Can you try using gcc 3.0.2?
For the compiled version, please read both mops.c you will see there is no
difference except for the definition of the array which if no missing
som
>
> dan at his recent talk at boston.pm's tech meeting said he was leaning
> towards a copying GC scheme. this would be the split ram in half design
> and copy all objects to the other half at CG time. the old half is
> reclaimed (not even reclaimed, just ignored!) in one big chunk.
>
This schemes
At 09:57 PM 11/3/2001 -0500, Brian Wheeler wrote:
>On Sat, 2001-11-03 at 21:40, Gregor N. Purdy wrote:
> >
> > None of these are issues with the approach I've been working on /
> > advocating. I'm hoping we can avoid these altogether.
> >
>
>
>I think this is a cool concept, but it seems like a lo
At 12:19 PM 11/4/2001 -0500, Michael Fischer wrote:
>On Nov 04, Daniel Grunblatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> took up a keyboard
>and banged out
> > First of all you miss typed:
> > -if ($c{do_opt_t} eq 'goto' and $c{cc} !~ /gcc/i ) {
> > +if ($c{do_op_t} eq 'goto' and $c{cc} !~ /cc/i ) {
>
>hmm. Thats no
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Daniel Grunblatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All:
> Here's a list of the things I've been doing:
>
> * Added ops2cgc.pl which generates core_cg_ops.c and core_cg_ops.h from
> core.ops, and modified Makefile.in to use it. In core_cg_ops.c resides
>
At 10:36 PM 11/3/2001 -0800, Brent Dax wrote:
>Well, for now we're using Perl for Configure, but that won't be possible
>in the final version. Nasty bootsrapping issues with that. :^)
You'd be surprised... :)
Seriously, miniparrot, enough to do simple file ops, spawn external
programs and che
While I'm not going to dive too deep into regexes (I like what little
sanity I have left, thanks :), here are a few opcodes I've been thinking of
for making REs faster:
=begin proposed_opcodes
=item makebitlist sx, sy
Makes the string in X a bitmap, with one bit set in it for each character
At 05:26 PM 11/4/2001 +, Richard J Cox wrote:
>This of course leads to the question of what is the earliest Win32 version
>that Perl6 will support?
Currently, I don't want to promise back before Win98, though if Win95 is no
different from a programming standpoint (I have no idea if it is) th
On Sun, 4 Nov 2001, Michael Fischer wrote:
> On Nov 04, Daniel Grunblatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> took up a keyboard and banged
>out
> > First of all you miss typed:
> > -if ($c{do_opt_t} eq 'goto' and $c{cc} !~ /gcc/i ) {
> > +if ($c{do_op_t} eq 'goto' and $c{cc} !~ /cc/i ) {
>
> hmm. Thats not wh
At 07:34 PM 11/4/2001 +0100, Benoit Cerrina wrote:
> >
> > dan at his recent talk at boston.pm's tech meeting said he was leaning
> > towards a copying GC scheme. this would be the split ram in half design
> > and copy all objects to the other half at CG time. the old half is
> > reclaimed (not ev
And now, with the patch
Michael
--
Michael Fischer 7.5 million years to run
[EMAIL PROTECTED]printf "%d", 0x2a;
-- deep thought
diff -ur parrot/Configure.pl dispatcher-11-04/Configure.pl
--- parro
Dan Sugalski:
# While I'm not going to dive too deep into regexes (I like what little
# sanity I have left, thanks :), here are a few opcodes I've
Oh, c'mon, they're not that bad. It's basically just "if this works, do
the next thing, otherwise go back and do some stuff over". "Do some
stuff ov
On Nov 04, Daniel Grunblatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> took up a keyboard and banged out
>
>
> On Sun, 4 Nov 2001, Michael Fischer wrote:
>
> > On Nov 04, Daniel Grunblatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> took up a keyboard and
>banged out
> > > I really suggest that you do a do_op.c and a do_op.h and that you c
Dan Sugalski:
# At 10:36 PM 11/3/2001 -0800, Brent Dax wrote:
# >Well, for now we're using Perl for Configure, but that won't
# be possible
# >in the final version. Nasty bootsrapping issues with that. :^)
#
# You'd be surprised... :)
#
# Seriously, miniparrot, enough to do simple file ops, spaw
Michael Fischer:
# In the goto case, we spin. And perhaps I am broken there. End
# really wants to return, not just set the pc, but I hadn't thought
# of a clever way to do that corner case, and wanted to see what
# the behavior would be without it. I suspect I need it.
Can't you just break()?
-
You miss typed yet again :) :
+prompt("Opcode dispatch by switch or function ('switch' or 'goto' or
'func')",
+'do_op_t');
+
+if ($c{do_opt_t} eq 'goto' and $c{cc} !~ /gcc/i ) {
do_op_t
+my $not_portable = "
+'goto' opcode dispatch available only with gc
Brent Dax :
> Okay, this bunch of ops is a serious attempt at regular expressions. I
> had a discussion with japhy on this in the Monastery
> (http://www.perlmonks.org/index.pl?node_id=122784), and I've come up
> with something flexible enough to actually (maybe) work. Attached is a
> patch to
> There will be a mechanism to register PMCs with the interpreter to note
> they're pointed to by something that the interpreter can't reach. (For
> example, a structure in your extension code, or via a pointer stashed in
> the depths of a buffer object, or referenced by another interpreter) This
At 11:12 AM 11/4/2001 -0800, Brent Dax wrote:
>Dan Sugalski:
># At 10:36 PM 11/3/2001 -0800, Brent Dax wrote:
># >Well, for now we're using Perl for Configure, but that won't
># be possible
># >in the final version. Nasty bootsrapping issues with that. :^)
>#
># You'd be surprised... :)
>#
># Se
On Nov 04, Brent Dax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> took up a keyboard and banged out
> Michael Fischer:
> # In the goto case, we spin. And perhaps I am broken there. End
> # really wants to return, not just set the pc, but I hadn't thought
> # of a clever way to do that corner case, and wanted to see what
>
At 11:06 AM 11/4/2001 -0800, Brent Dax wrote:
>Dan Sugalski:
># While I'm not going to dive too deep into regexes (I like what little
># sanity I have left, thanks :), here are a few opcodes I've
>
>Oh, c'mon, they're not that bad. It's basically just "if this works, do
>the next thing, otherwise
> I think your approuch is much better and cleaner than mine, my brain was
> limited to unix :) so I never worried about anything besides gcc.
> It would also be nice if you can decide which dispatch method use instead
> of asking.
Hum, I think you mean linux, maybe BSD, but the other unixes com
At 08:32 PM 11/4/2001 +0100, Benoit Cerrina wrote:
> > There will be a mechanism to register PMCs with the interpreter to note
> > they're pointed to by something that the interpreter can't reach. (For
> > example, a structure in your extension code, or via a pointer stashed in
> > the depths of
Did you put an eye on my implementation? what's the point in using
computed goto when tracing, checking bounds or profiling?
Daniel Grunblatt.
On Sun, 4 Nov 2001, Michael Fischer wrote:
> On Nov 04, Brent Dax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> took up a keyboard and banged out
> > Michael Fischer:
> > # In th
At 02:33 PM 11/4/2001 -0300, Daniel Grunblatt wrote:
>Did you put an eye on my implementation? what's the point in using
>computed goto when tracing, checking bounds or profiling?
There's not a huge amount of win over a switch, but there is a benefit over
the function dispatch method.
So, on those other unixes that come with cc we can't use computed goto?
Daniel Grunblatt.
On Sun, 4 Nov 2001, Benoit Cerrina wrote:
>
>
> > I think your approuch is much better and cleaner than mine, my brain was
> > limited to unix :) so I never worried about anything besides gcc.
> > It would
On Sat, 3 Nov 2001, Zach Lipton wrote:
> parrot. The idea is to have the Configure.pl script itself run .cm files
> located in Config/, these .cm files (configuremodule) would do the actual
> work of configuration. The Conf.pm module would contain a set of API's for
> the .cm files to call. (this
At 02:37 PM 11/4/2001 -0300, Daniel Grunblatt wrote:
>So, on those other unixes that come with cc we can't use computed goto?
Computed goto is, at the moment, a GCC-specific feature. It's not OS
specific, just compiler-specific.
Dan
-
> While the PMC structures themselves don't move (no real need--there of
> fixed size so you can't fragment your allocation pool, though it makes
Sorry can you expand on this. I don't see the relation between the data
being fixed size and the memory not becomming fragmented.
> generational colle
Sure, I alredy knew that, may be I'm just having a hard time to make my
self clear.
What I mean was:
On those unixes, with cc (NOT GCC), that Benoit Cerrina pointed, Can we
use computed goto?
or in other words:
Is there any other compiler besides gcc that implements computed goto?
Daniel Grun
At 09:36 PM 11/4/2001 +0100, Benoit Cerrina wrote:
> > While the PMC structures themselves don't move (no real need--there of
> > fixed size so you can't fragment your allocation pool, though it makes
>Sorry can you expand on this. I don't see the relation between the data
>being fixed size and
At 02:45 PM 11/4/2001 -0300, Daniel Grunblatt wrote:
>Sure, I alredy knew that, may be I'm just having a hard time to make my
>self clear.
>
>What I mean was:
>
>On those unixes, with cc (NOT GCC), that Benoit Cerrina pointed, Can we
>use computed goto?
No. And Unix generally doesn't enter into i
Yes, and thanks to Michael Fischer I'm already working on that as I
described on a previos mail. I hope to post it in a few hours.
Daniel Grunblatt.
On Sun, 4 Nov 2001, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 02:45 PM 11/4/2001 -0300, Daniel Grunblatt wrote:
> >Sure, I alredy knew that, may be I'm just having
Angel Faus:
# Since your ops are much complete and better documented that
# the ones I sent,
# I was trying to adapt my previous regex compiler to your ops,
# but I found
# what i think might be a limitation of your model.
#
# It looks to me that for compiling down regexp to usual
# opcodes there
On Sunday 04 November 2001 02:39 pm, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 08:32 PM 11/4/2001 +0100, Benoit Cerrina wrote:
> > > There will be a mechanism to register PMCs with the interpreter to note
> > > they're pointed to by something that the interpreter can't reach. (For
> > > example, a structure in you
On Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 01:47:44PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> I've not made any promises as to what type of GC system we'll use. I'm
> gearing things towards a copying collector, but I'm also trying to make
> sure we don't lock ourselves out of a generational scheme.
I'd really like to hear th
On Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 01:38:58PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Currently, I don't want to promise back before Win98, though if Win95 is no
> different from a programming standpoint (I have no idea if it is) then
> that's fine too. Win 3.1 and DOS are *not* target platforms, though if
> someone
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Daniel Grunblatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yeap, I was right, using gcc 3.0.2 you can see the difference:
I've just tried it with 3.0.1 and see much the same results as I did
with 2.96 I'm afraid. I don't have 3.0.2 to hand without building it
from sou
Do you want me to give you an account in my linux machine where I have
install gcc 3.0.2 so that you see it?
Daniel Grunblatt.
On Mon, 5 Nov 2001, Tom Hughes wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Daniel Grunblatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Yeap, I was right, using gcc 3.0.2
On Sunday 04 November 2001 03:36 pm, Benoit Cerrina wrote:
> > While the PMC structures themselves don't move (no real need--there of
> > fixed size so you can't fragment your allocation pool, though it makes
>
> Sorry can you expand on this. I don't see the relation between the data
> being fixe
- Original Message -
From: "James Mastros" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Dan Sugalski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Benoit Cerrina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Uri Guttman"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 12:03 AM
Subject
- Message Text -
All.-
Now I'm sending:
* A modification to Configure.pl and Makefile.in to detect if the compiler
accepts computed gotos, also added testcomputedgoto_c.in.
* A modification to runcore_ops.c and interpreter.c adding an ifdef.
* The same ops2cgc.pl and the same modificat
On Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 07:27:01PM -0300, Daniel Grunblatt wrote:
> * A modification to Configure.pl and Makefile.in to detect if the compiler
> accepts computed gotos, also added testcomputedgoto_c.in.
Is there some reason that this is an _c.in file? I've noticed that both
this and testparrotsiz
I'm working on learning some parrot asm, but if I write something like this:
set N0,2
set N1,2
add N3, N0, N1
print N3
I get:
4.00
Is there any way to round this, or at least chop the 0's off the end?
Zach
On Sunday 04 November 2001 10:59 pm, Zach Lipton wrote:
> I'm working on learning some parrot asm, but if I write something like
> this:
>
> set N0,2
> set N1,2
> add N3, N0, N1
> print N3
>
>
> I get:
>
> 4.00
>
> Is there any way to round this, or at least chop the 0's off the end?
since pr
This (rather large) set of patches adds the ability for parrot to use
multiple operation libraries. It's currently adding 'obscure.ops' and
'vtable.ops' to the list of operations the interpreter can perform,
though vtable.ops is not tested for obvious reasons.
While this likely should be done in
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "Michael L Maraist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2001 10:10 PM
>Subject: Re: Rules for memory allocation and pointing
>
>
>On Sunday 04 November 2001 03:36 pm, Benoit Cerrina wrote:
>> > While the PMC structures the
>At 09:36 PM 11/4/2001 +0100, Benoit Cerrina wrote:
>
>> > While the PMC structures themselves don't move (no real need--there of
>> > fixed size so you can't fragment your allocation pool, though it makes
>>Sorry can you expand on this. I don't see the relation between the data
>>being fixed siz
Yeap, I was right, using gcc 3.0.2 you can see the difference:
Without my patch:
linux# ./test_prog examples/assembly/mops.pbc
Iterations:1
Estimated ops: 3
Elapsed time: 20.972973
M op/s:14.304124
With the patch:
linux# ./test_prog examples/assembly/mops.pbc
Itera
55 matches
Mail list logo
