At 04:34 PM 11/5/2001 -0800, Steve Fink wrote:
>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
As someone interested in both Perl and garbage collection, I've
been following the discussion here with interest. Since I
haven't seen it mentioned, I thought I would point out Paul
Wilson's work in this area at UT Austin, which I found useful
back when I was doing GC stuff. He has a survey of G
On Mon, Nov 05, 2001 at 11:35:53PM -0500, Ken Fox wrote:
> IMHO Perl is getting
Interesting construction. :)
> some static typing ability, so it should be able
> to emit bytecode that doesn't go through the PMC vtable.
Yes, but that's fundamentally different from inlining vtable methods
in the
At 11:29 AM 11/6/2001 -0500, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
>On Tuesday 06 November 2001 11:32 am, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > Getting parrot building on Solaris brought up another interesting
> > portability issue. Turns out the default GCC switches are inappropriate
> > for GCC 2.8.1, which is the default
On Tuesday 06 November 2001 11:38 am, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >What switches broke?
>
> -fno-strict-aliasing
Ah. Well, steal a page from Perl 5's configure then, 'cause they check for
it.
--
Bryan C. Warnock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 6 Nov 2001, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Okay, I just tweaked things some, and now parrot builds and tests OK on
> Solaris, Linux, and Cygwin. It's theoretically possible that this'll get
> things building OK on all the recent-vintage Unices, but I can't promise
> that. :)
>
> Could folks on
At 05:24 PM 11/6/2001 +, Alex Gough wrote:
>On Tue, 6 Nov 2001, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> > Okay, I just tweaked things some, and now parrot builds and tests OK on
> > Solaris, Linux, and Cygwin. It's theoretically possible that this'll get
> > things building OK on all the recent-vintage Unices
A fresh checkout (both after and before Dan's portability patch) gives me a
lot of failed tests on cygwin.
¿Is it me or is it really a problem? Dan said it's tested on cygwin...
$ make test
Failed TestStatus Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed
-
At 11:12 PM 11/5/2001 +, Alex Gough wrote:
>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
On Tue, 6 Nov 2001, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Getting parrot building on Solaris brought up another interesting
> portability issue. Turns out the default GCC switches are inappropriate for
> GCC 2.8.1, which is the default on my Sun box. Works OK with gcc
> 2.95.somethingorother.
>
> How far bac
At 07:08 PM 11/6/2001 +0100, Angel Faus wrote:
>A fresh checkout (both after and before Dan's portability patch) gives me a
>lot of failed tests on cygwin.
>
>¿Is it me or is it really a problem? Dan said it's tested on cygwin...
The tests fail for spurious line-ending problems, which is kinda a
At 01:10 PM 11/6/2001 -0500, Andy Dougherty wrote:
>On Tue, 6 Nov 2001, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> > Getting parrot building on Solaris brought up another interesting
> > portability issue. Turns out the default GCC switches are inappropriate
> for
> > GCC 2.8.1, which is the default on my Sun box.
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >What switches broke?
>
> -fno-strict-aliasing
But parrot doesn't need that anyway as far as I know. It is needed
in perl5 because of the horrible things it does with casts and such
like but if we can avoid hav
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Daniel Grunblatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Index: Makefile.in
> ===
> RCS file: /home/perlcvs/parrot/Makefile.in,v
> retrieving revision 1.43
> diff -u -r1.43 Makefile.in
I enhanced this t
Okay, I just tweaked things some, and now parrot builds and tests OK on
Solaris, Linux, and Cygwin. It's theoretically possible that this'll get
things building OK on all the recent-vintage Unices, but I can't promise
that. :)
Could folks on Tru64/Irix/HP-UX/AIX check this out and give it a wh
Getting parrot building on Solaris brought up another interesting
portability issue. Turns out the default GCC switches are inappropriate for
GCC 2.8.1, which is the default on my Sun box. Works OK with gcc
2.95.somethingorother.
How far back with GCC should we support?
On Tuesday 06 November 2001 11:32 am, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Getting parrot building on Solaris brought up another interesting
> portability issue. Turns out the default GCC switches are inappropriate
> for GCC 2.8.1, which is the default on my Sun box. Works OK with gcc
> 2.95.somethingorother.
>
After looking at the internal data types PDD and the vtable PDD (which by the
way is truncated on dev.perl.org in the pdd and HTML form), I can't make sense
of the separate float_type and num_type declared in the vtable structure.
struct _vtable {
struct PACKAGE *package;
INTVAL base_type;
At 05:05 PM 11/6/2001 -0500, Jason Gloudon wrote:
>After looking at the internal data types PDD and the vtable PDD (which by the
>way is truncated on dev.perl.org in the pdd and HTML form), I can't make sense
>of the separate float_type and num_type declared in the vtable structure.
A variable w
'Kay, here's a quick overview of how memory, garbage collection, and dead
object detection are going to work in Parrot. (And I appreciate this
getting raised now, BTW--both because it's about time and because it makes
me think about it in time for next saturday)
There are three sets of memory
Lot of reading, thanks.
Benoit
PS:
I guess the actual page of interest is:
http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/oops/papers.html
please correct me if wrong
- Original Message -
From: "Sean O'Rourke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 7:32 AM
Subject: u
Simon Cozens wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 05, 2001 at 11:35:53PM -0500, Ken Fox wrote:
> > IMHO Perl is getting
>
> Interesting construction. :)
Yeah, that should have been a disclaimer. I've heard static typing
proposed, but nothing appears finalized about anything yet. Something
like static typing mi
22 matches
Mail list logo
