Re: [PATCH] Disable GC at startup

2002-04-14 Thread Mike Lambert
Bryan C. Warnock wrote: > Oh, in which case, I agree with you. ;-) Oh, woops. :) For some reason I was assuming you were arguing against my patch. Anyways, below is a revised and simpler patch that implements the same semantics as before, but using Dan's new DOD_block_level and GC_block_level

Re: gcc3 issues?

2002-04-14 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 11:47 PM -0700 4/13/02, Robert Spier wrote: >Looks like we've got a slew of gcc3 issues (which don't show up on the >tinderboxes, cause nobody's running a gcc3 box.) What sub-version of GCC 3? -- Dan --"it's like th

Re: gcc3 issues?

2002-04-14 Thread H.Merijn Brand
On Sun 14 Apr 2002 16:01, Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 11:47 PM -0700 4/13/02, Robert Spier wrote: > >Looks like we've got a slew of gcc3 issues (which don't show up on the > >tinderboxes, cause nobody's running a gcc3 box.) > > What sub-version of GCC 3? FWIW bleadperl compiles

Re: [PATCH] Disable GC at startup

2002-04-14 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 6:37 AM -0400 4/14/02, Mike Lambert wrote: >Bryan C. Warnock wrote: > >> Oh, in which case, I agree with you. ;-) > >Oh, woops. :) For some reason I was assuming you were arguing against >my patch. Which is applied. I'd rather enforce the "No allocations until mem_setup_allocator is done, a

Re: [PRE-RELEASE] 0.0.5 upcoming

2002-04-14 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 9:30 PM -0400 4/13/02, Jeff wrote: >Hopefully that'll get your attention. > >In the interests of accomplishing something this millennium, I'm >planning to tag version 0.0.5 at some time around 12:01am EST Monday, >April 15. I'll be watching mail up until the deadline, so if nobody >complains, M

Re: gcc3 issues?

2002-04-14 Thread Robert Spier
Dan Sugalski wrote: > At 11:47 PM -0700 4/13/02, Robert Spier wrote: >> Looks like we've got a slew of gcc3 issues (which don't show up on the >> tinderboxes, cause nobody's running a gcc3 box.) > What sub-version of GCC 3? 3.0.4 (running on a relatively stock Pentium2 / RH7.2 system.) This cam

Re: gcc3 issues?

2002-04-14 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 8:58 AM -0700 4/14/02, Robert Spier wrote: >Dan Sugalski wrote: >> At 11:47 PM -0700 4/13/02, Robert Spier wrote: >>> Looks like we've got a slew of gcc3 issues (which don't show up on the >>> tinderboxes, cause nobody's running a gcc3 box.) >> What sub-version of GCC 3? > >3.0.4 > >(runnin

Re: COW for strings

2002-04-14 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 11:12 AM +0200 4/9/02, Peter Gibbs wrote: >I don't think we are in a position yet to prove much of anything as regards >real-world Perl programs, but just one data point as an example - using >examples/assembly/life.pasm (changed to 5000 generations) 10% speedup in some circumstances. OK, I'm

Re: gcc3 issues?

2002-04-14 Thread Robert Spier
>>> What sub-version of GCC 3? >> 3.0.4 > > > Damn. Do the failing tests segfault? I didn't look that closely. Some of them definitely are spitting out wrong data. (Very odd.) I didn't notice any Segmentation Fault warnings in the output though, so I'd guess no, unless it's being trapped b

Re: vector processing in Perl6?

2002-04-14 Thread Rich Morin
At 5:26 PM -0700 4/13/02, Larry Wall wrote: >Well, Perl 5 doesn't really support compact arrays of known size, and >those are the only kind that are easy to think about when it comes to >vectorization. Actually, I can think of other possibilities. For instance, aren't some string operations (e.g

Re: Is there a way to turn GC completely off?

2002-04-14 Thread Clinton A. Pierce
At 10:06 PM 4/13/2002 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote: >At 5:35 PM -0400 4/13/02, Clinton A. Pierce wrote: >>I'm fighting a now-you-see-it now-you-don't kind of bug and I was >>wondering if there's a way to completely turn off garbage collection and >>memory re-use for debugging? > >Yes. The sweepoff

Re: gcc3 issues?

2002-04-14 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 9:26 AM -0700 4/14/02, Robert Spier wrote: > >>> What sub-version of GCC 3? >>> 3.0.4 >> >> >> Damn. Do the failing tests segfault? > > >I didn't look that closely. Some of them definitely are spitting out >wrong data. (Very odd.) > >I didn't notice any Segmentation Fault warnings in the

Re: Is there a way to turn GC completely off?

2002-04-14 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 1:24 PM -0400 4/14/02, Clinton A. Pierce wrote: >At 10:06 PM 4/13/2002 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote: >>At 5:35 PM -0400 4/13/02, Clinton A. Pierce wrote: >>>I'm fighting a now-you-see-it now-you-don't kind of bug and I was >>>wondering if there's a way to completely turn off garbage >>>collectio

pasm.el and looping ops

2002-04-14 Thread Marco Baringer
pasm.el Description: application/emacs-lisp Index: core.ops === RCS file: /cvs/public/parrot/core.ops,v retrieving revision 1.120 diff -u -r1.120 core.ops --- core.ops 14 Apr 2002 02:05:46 - 1.120 +++ core.ops 14 Apr 2002 18:11:

Re: pasm.el and looping ops

2002-04-14 Thread Marco Baringer
ok, please pardon the inconvience but everytime i send mail to perl6-internals the body of my message disappears... anyway, here's what i meant to say: [original email] i have written a simple emacs mode, providing highlighting, indentation, and compilation, for dealing with .pasm files, it's

[Applied] pasm.el

2002-04-14 Thread Josh Wilmes
Marco- i went ahead and added your pasm.el file under parrot/editor/. I'm not familiar enough with the ops to commit your other patch- i'll leave that for someone else. --Josh At 20:21 on 04/14/2002 +0200, Marco Baringer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ok, please pardon the inconvience but e

[PATCH] Re: Is there a way to turn GC completely off?

2002-04-14 Thread Peter Gibbs
The specific problem Clinton mentioned is yet another infant mortality problem, this time in string_concat. I don't know what the current decision is on handling these situations, but this one can be avoided by optimising the code anyway. If the transcoding is done before making the result string,

Re: TODO additions

2002-04-14 Thread Tom Hughes
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Tom Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have developed patch for this in the form of a new routine > which returns a nul terminated C style string given a parrot > string as argument. It does this by making sure buflen is at > least one greater than bufu

Re: Is there a way to turn GC completely off?

2002-04-14 Thread Peter Gibbs
[Follow up to my previous post] lib/Parrot/Assembler.pm creates all string constants with chartype = 0, which, by virtue of the sequence of the enums in include/parrot/chartype.h means unicode. So all string constants are type: unicode, encoding: singlebyte. I am not going to try and fix this on

Re: TODO additions

2002-04-14 Thread Mike Lambert
> > I have developed patch for this in the form of a new routine > > which returns a nul terminated C style string given a parrot > > string as argument. It does this by making sure buflen is at > > least one greater than bufused and then stuffing a nul in that > > byte. > > > > This isn't a parti

Re: [PATCH] Re: Is there a way to turn GC completely off?

2002-04-14 Thread Clinton A. Pierce
At 08:55 PM 4/14/2002 +0200, Peter Gibbs wrote: >The specific problem Clinton mentioned is yet another infant mortality >problem, this time in string_concat. I don't know what the current decision >is on handling these situations, but this one can be avoided by optimising >the code anyway. If the

Re: [PATCH] Re: Is there a way to turn GC completely off?

2002-04-14 Thread Clinton A. Pierce
At 08:55 PM 4/14/2002 +0200, Peter Gibbs wrote: >The specific problem Clinton mentioned is yet another infant mortality >problem, this time in string_concat. I don't know what the current decision >is on handling these situations, but this one can be avoided by optimising >the code anyway. If the

Re: Unary dot

2002-04-14 Thread Dave Mitchell
On Sat, Apr 13, 2002 at 05:07:37PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote: > Of course, one of the big reasons we went with $self was the pun: > > my $self = shift; > > which we won't have now. Unless we always hide the invocant and > force you to say > > my $self = invocant; > > or some such mummer

Re: [PRE-RELEASE] 0.0.5 upcoming

2002-04-14 Thread Jeff
Jeff wrote: > > Hopefully that'll get your attention. > > In the interests of accomplishing something this millennium, I'm > planning to tag version 0.0.5 at some time around 12:01am EST Monday, > April 15. I'll be watching mail up until the deadline, so if nobody > complains, Monday evening I'l

Re: [PATCH] Re: Is there a way to turn GC completely off?

2002-04-14 Thread Mike Lambert
> As a follow-up, I found one bug. Rather odd it is. The symptom is loading > a program, doing a LIST > and seeing only part of the code. Dumping the > string-which-contains-the-code you can see the entire program in it (unlike > the earlier described bug). The problem was in here: Clint, in

Re: Unary dot

2002-04-14 Thread Damian Conway
> One of the features I like about Eiffel is what Meyer calls the Uniform > Access principle...It sounds as though Perl 6 is heading towards supporting > this. Have we actually got there? That's the intention, yes. The details still need to be nutted out, but it seems very likely that if you w

Re: Subroutine variables are like underwear

2002-04-14 Thread Damian Conway
Yes, subroutine variables *are* like underwear. But parameter names *aren't* like underwear. Because they're not (primarily) subroutine variables. So they're like the labels on the knobs, dials, and buttons of your favourite elctronic device. They're part of the *interface*, not (primarily) part