Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 03:29:00PM +, Dave Mitchell wrote:
> > I'd prefer the "you have 8 private bits, the rest is Parrot's" approach
> > rather than the "Parrot has 8 bits and the rest is yours for now, we'll
> > let you know when we want to grab som
On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 03:56:15PM +, Dave Mitchell wrote:
> My bluff has been called!
> Okay, here's a stab at it. I'm keen that we use enums to define constants,
> rather than using #define.
Nice work. Thanks, applied.
--
teco < /dev/audio
- Ignatios Souvatzis
Hi,
I have found a reference for a very interesting project related to
accelerating Python with some nice ideas, that maybe could be applied to
Parrot too.
It's called Psyco (standing for Python Specializing Compiler) and works (if
I understood it right) by creating specialized versions of pytho
James Mastros wrote:
> In byteswapping the bytecode ...
>
> I propose that we make INTVAL and opcode_t the same size, and gaurrenteed
> to be able to hold a void*.
It sounds like you want portable byte code. Is that a goal? It seems like
we can have either mmap'able byte code or portable byte co
On Tue, 2001-11-20 at 12:19, Ken Fox wrote:
> James Mastros wrote:
> > In byteswapping the bytecode ...
> >
> > I propose that we make INTVAL and opcode_t the same size, and gaurrenteed
> > to be able to hold a void*.
>
> It sounds like you want portable byte code. Is that a goal? It seems like
On Tue, 20 Nov 2001, Ken Fox wrote:
> It sounds like you want portable byte code. Is that a goal?
I do indeed want portable packfiles, and I thought that was more then a
"goal", I thought that was a "requirement". In an ideal world, I want a
PVM to be intergrated in a webbrowser the same way a JV
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2001, Ken Fox wrote:
> > It sounds like you want portable byte code. Is that a goal?
> I do indeed want portable packfiles, and I thought that was more then a
> "goal", I thought that was a "requirement". In an ideal world, I want a
> PVM to be intergrated in a webbrowser the sam
Hi,
as Michael G Schwern showed me I posted a wrong information about ruby
in this list, after testing I found that ruby and perl performance are
roughly equivalent in very simple tests such as a fibonacci's series
computation. My misconception came from an older benchmark I did and it
did not i
Presence of old .pasm &c files can cause tests to fail because they
blindly attempt to write to string17.pasm or whatever.
-Jeff
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
