http://www.25hoursaday.com/StoringAndQueryingXML.html#samplexpath
like plan9, Xpath uses slash instead of dot to get inside things.
Note the slicing syntax.
Michael Fischer:
# 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 c
Michael L Maraist:
# 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
#
Zach Lipton:
# 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?
In this case at least, you could convert N3 to an I
Zach Lipton sent the following bits through the ether:
> Is there any way to round this, or at least chop the 0's off the end?
Right. I'd just like to clear this up completely. The N registers are
for numerics (well, ok, floating point) and the I registers are for
integers. Currently, quite a bi
On Mon, Nov 05, 2001 at 12:44:38AM -0500, Jeff wrote:
> This (rather large) set of patches adds the ability for parrot to use
> +interpreter->profile = (INTVAL
>*)mem_sys_allocate((core_numops+obscure_numops+vtable_numops) * sizeof(INTVAL));
Nice idea, but I'm afraid I'm not conv
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Daniel Grunblatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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?
I'm not sure that will achieve anything - it's not that I don't
believe you, it's just that I'm not
On Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 06:22:59PM -0300, Daniel Grunblatt wrote:
> 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?
How much effort do we want to put into something that shows a speedup
on one particular version of one particular comp
As you can see the problem is still that you are not using gcc 3.0.2,
please take 10' minutes and compile gcc 3.0.2, I will now compile 3.0.1
just to see what happens.
For the compiled version I attached a diff between the current mops.c and
the patch mops.c, enlighten me on how can that differen
A lot, since it's the lastone, and as I said in a previous mail, we can
let everyone download binaries, but, read the previos mail sent by Tom
Hughes there IS a speed up any way on the older version, why shouldn't we
implement this anyway?.
Daniel Grunblatt.
On Mon, 5 Nov 2001, Simon Cozens wrot
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Daniel Grunblatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As you can see the problem is still that you are not using gcc 3.0.2,
> please take 10' minutes and compile gcc 3.0.2, I will now compile 3.0.1
> just to see what happens.
I have been having a very hard time bel
Simon and Jeff --
> > This (rather large) set of patches adds the ability for parrot to use
> > +interpreter->profile = (INTVAL
>*)mem_sys_allocate((core_numops+obscure_numops+vtable_numops) * sizeof(INTVAL));
>
> Nice idea, but I'm afraid I'm not convinced that this is sufficie
At 10:16 AM 11/5/2001 -0500, Sam Tregar wrote:
>On Mon, 5 Nov 2001, Simon Cozens wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 06:22:59PM -0300, Daniel Grunblatt wrote:
> > > 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?
> >
> > How much
At 06:27 PM 11/4/2001 -0500, James Mastros wrote:
>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.
Hi Brent,
># I have been uncapable of expressing nested groups or
># alternation with your model, and I would say that this
># is because the engine needs some way to save not only
># the index into the string, but also the point of the
># regex where it can branch on a backtack.
>I've been a bi
Right, now, what about the audience with an operative system with gcc
3.0.2? Can't we ship compiled versions for every plataform/operative
system?
By the way, the patch that I sent is already 2.5 - 3 times faster on *BSD
Daniel Grunblatt.
On Mon, 5 Nov 2001, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 10:16 AM 1
Angel Faus:
# ># I have been uncapable of expressing nested groups or
# ># alternation with your model, and I would say that this
# ># is because the engine needs some way to save not only
# ># the index into the string, but also the point of the
# ># regex where it can branch on a backtack.
#
# >
On Sat, 2001-11-03 at 22:11, Gregor N. Purdy wrote:
> Brian --
>
> > > 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 lot of overhead with
> > the str
Daniel Grunblatt:
# On Mon, 5 Nov 2001, Brent Dax wrote:
#
# > Michael Fischer:
# > # 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,
At 10:24 AM 11/5/2001 -0300, Daniel Grunblatt wrote:
>Right, now, what about the audience with an operative system with gcc
>3.0.2?
What about 'em? They build the same way everyone else does.
Gearing code specifically towards the quirks of a specific compiler
version's usually a good way to get
No, I totally disagree on that if I do that we will lose the speed gained
before, I still don't know why we can't stay we the actual dispatch method
when tracing, etc and use computed goto when running without any command
line switch?
Daniel Grunblatt.
On Mon, 5 Nov 2001, Brent Dax wrote:
> Dan
Daniel Grunblatt:
# No, I totally disagree on that if I do that we will lose the
# speed gained
# before, I still don't know why we can't stay we the actual
# dispatch method
# when tracing, etc and use computed goto when running without
# any command
# line switch?
If we enable tracing with comp
I'm definetly having a hard time trying to make my self clear, sorry guys
I'm still learning english :( .
The point is that,in my opinion, we don't really need to be faster than
now when tracing, etc but we DO have to be faster when running like:
# ./test_prog mops.pbc
On Mon, 5 Nov 2001, Bre
On Mon, Nov 05, 2001 at 11:46:50AM -0300, Daniel Grunblatt wrote:
> The point is that,in my opinion, we don't really need to be faster than
> now when tracing, etc but we DO have to be faster when running like:
I agree completely. I'd like to see configure-time options for the
runops loop.
--
"
At 05:32 PM 11/5/2001 +, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Mon, Nov 05, 2001 at 11:46:50AM -0300, Daniel Grunblatt wrote:
> > The point is that,in my opinion, we don't really need to be faster than
> > now when tracing, etc but we DO have to be faster when running like:
>
>I agree completely. I'd like t
You already got them on my last patch posted yesterday, but now I'm
working in a new version which will have nicer code, in that patch I
didn't add an if to the Makefile, because I thought that it is not
portable, but Brent Dax told me that I can use it, what do you think about
this? should we kee
On Monday 05 November 2001 09:46 am, Daniel Grunblatt wrote:
> This is exactly what I'm trying to avoid, this is a big overhead, because
> if I'm understaing right you are suggesting to add and if here, right?
> well imagine that if made everytime even when we are not tracing.
>
> Unless that what
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 08:48 PM 11/4/2001 -0500, James Mastros wrote:
> >For that matter, why are we avoiding filenames with more then one dot? It'd
> >be easy to teach a Makefile to get core.ops.c from core.ops; much harder to
> >te
On Mon, 5 Nov 2001, Brent Dax wrote:
> Michael Fischer:
> # 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
At 06:03 PM 11/4/2001 -0500, James Mastros wrote:
>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 o
Dan Sugalski wrote:
> We might want to have one fast and potentially big loop (switch or computed
> goto) with all the alternate (tracing, Safe, and debugging) loops use the
> indirect function dispatch so we're not wedging another 250K per loop or
> something.
Absolutely. There's no gain from
On Mon, Nov 05, 2001 at 02:08:21PM -0500, Ken Fox wrote:
> we'd be a lot better inlining some of the PMC methods as ops instead of
> trig functions. ;)
Won't work. We can't predict what kind of PMCs will be coming our way, let
alone what vtables they'll use, let alone what methods those vtables w
On Mon, 5 Nov 2001, Simon Cozens wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 06:22:59PM -0300, Daniel Grunblatt wrote:
> > 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?
>
> How much effort do we want to put into something that shows a speedu
At 08:48 PM 11/4/2001 -0500, James Mastros wrote:
>For that matter, why are we avoiding filenames with more then one dot? It'd
>be easy to teach a Makefile to get core.ops.c from core.ops; much harder to
>tell it how to get core_ops.c. (Note that in the current Makefile, we
>special-case it.)
S
> >It's pretty
> >much functional, including reOneof. Still, these could be useful
> >internal functions... *ponder*
>
> I was thinking that the places they could come in really handy for were
> character classes. \w, \s, and \d are potentially a lot faster this way,
> 'specially if you throw
Sets defines to ensure that post Win95 functions are not defined in
windows.h.
Richard
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
win32_h_WINVER.diff
Description: Binary data
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(James Mastros) wrote:
> 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) the
At 12:23 AM 11/5/2001 -0800, Brent Dax wrote:
>Michael L Maraist:
># On Sunday 04 November 2001 02:39 pm, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>My understanding is that we will pretty much only allocate PMCs out of
>the arena and any buffers are allocated out of the GC region. (I could
>be wrong, of course...)
T
On Mon, 5 Nov 2001, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 10:24 AM 11/5/2001 -0300, Daniel Grunblatt wrote:
> >Right, now, what about the audience with an operative system with gcc
> >3.0.2?
>
> What about 'em? They build the same way everyone else does.
>
> Gearing code specifically towards the quirks of a
On Mon, 5 Nov 2001, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 12:23 AM 11/5/2001 -0800, Brent Dax wrote:
> >Michael L Maraist:
[reordered for clarity]
>
> > But I hear that we're not relying on an
> > integer for
> > reference counting (as with perl5), and instead are mostly
> > dependant on the
> > GC.
>
> You'
Quoting Dan Sugalski ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> At 11:54 AM 11/5/2001 -0800, Steve Fink wrote:
> > > >It's pretty
> > > >much functional, including reOneof. Still, these could be useful
> > > >internal functions... *ponder*
> > >
> > > I was thinking that the places they could come in really handy fo
At 11:54 AM 11/5/2001 -0800, Steve Fink wrote:
> > >It's pretty
> > >much functional, including reOneof. Still, these could be useful
> > >internal functions... *ponder*
> >
> > I was thinking that the places they could come in really handy for were
> > character classes. \w, \s, and \d are poten
..
Index: Makefile.in
===
RCS file: /home/perlcvs/parrot/Makefile.in,v
retrieving revision 1.43
diff -u -r1.43 Makefile.in
--- Makefile.in 2001/11/02 12:11:15 1.43
+++ Makefile.in 2001/11/06 02:38:03
@@ -130,7 +130,7 @@
Simon Cozens wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 05, 2001 at 02:08:21PM -0500, Ken Fox wrote:
> > we'd be a lot better inlining some of the PMC methods as ops instead of
> > trig functions. ;)
>
> Won't work. We can't predict what kind of PMCs will be coming our way, let
> alone what vtables they'll use, let al
> You're conflating dead object detection with GC. Don't--the two things are
> separate and if you think of them that way it makes things clearer.
>
> ># Well, if we use a copying GC, but never move the PMC,
> ># then how are we
> ># freeing these PMCs?
>
> The dead object detection phase notes
45 matches
Mail list logo
