On Sun, 4 Aug 2002, Mike Lambert wrote:
> Unfortunately, this causes different semantics for whether you are storing
> primitives or pointers (primitives copy, whereas pointers are shallow). Of
> course, one could argue that the previous one didn't work at all. :)
>
> Thoughts?
Well, it's certain
> Okay, I finally give. For purposes of liveness tracing and GC, we're
> going to unify PMCs and strings/buffers. This means we trace through
> strings and buffers if the flags are right, and we need to add a GC
> link pointer to strings/buffers. It'll make things a bit larger,
> which I don't lik
Mike Lambert wrote:
> One idea, which is most closely in line with the current semantics, is to
> add a pool pointer to every header. I've found a few times in the past
> where such a pointer would have come in handy. This would allow us to call
> the pool's mark() function, to handle stuff like
Sean O'Rourke wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Aug 2002, Mike Lambert wrote:
>
>>Unfortunately, this causes different semantics for whether you are storing
>>primitives or pointers (primitives copy, whereas pointers are shallow). Of
>>course, one could argue that the previous one didn't work at all. :)
>>
>>T
Sorry for the Wayback Machine...
On Mon, 2002-07-15 at 01:13, Ashley Winters wrote:
> I decided my next step should be to take a look at the PDDs so I know what's
> going on. I would expect them to be like a writer's canon for a TV show. I'll
> write my impressions as I go on.
>
> PDD00:
> Doe
--- Dave Storrs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually, this is one thing that has troubled me
> about the new regex rules, and I've mentioned it
> before. I would still like for there to be
> a "reverse /x" switch, that would tell the
> regex that I want it to treat whitespace
> literally
Doe
Mike Lambert wrote:
> I'm currently favoring allowing for header pools on a per-type basis, not
> just a per-size basis. This would give us a 'hash' pool. The pool
> structure would contain function pointers for collection and/or dod
> purposes. (stuff that would otherwise be in a PMC vtable.)
I
Mike Lambert wrote:
> At one point, we had a mem_alloc_aligned, which guaranteed the start of a
> block of memory given any pointer into the contents of the block. If we
> store a pointer to the pool at the beginning of each set of headers, then
> we navoid the need for a per-header pool pointer,
How Freudian can you get. The subject on this email should have been RECALL
renamed to AGAIN. It took me until now to realize this.
Sorry,
Tanton
- Original Message -
From: "Tanton Gibbs (via RT)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 2:36 PM
Subject:
# New Ticket Created by Leopold Toetsch
# Please include the string: [perl #15971]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=15971 >
Hi,
when trying to compile a perl6 program to native c, pbc2c fails on the
capture
From: "Damian Conway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > what would "true" (the string) be converted to?
>
> In a numeric context: 0 (as in Perl 5).
which was my point. You wouldn't want to cast any ol' scalar as a
number just to get 1 or 0 representations or TRUE or FALSE... that wouldn't
DWIM.
On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 09:06:31PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 06:43:49PM +0200, Jerome Vouillon wrote:
> > Allocating a hash will certainly remain a lot more expensive than
> > allocating an array. And we are going to allocate pads pretty
> > often...
>
> Are we? Or a
On Sat, 3 Aug 2002, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> I wasn't actually expecting you to apply that :-)
> It was more a "where I am at now" informational patch.
Sorry :)
>
> I think that this patch is at good point to pause and take stock. I believe
> it JITs just about every integer op (including some i3
On Sat, Aug 03, 2002 at 01:42:06AM -0400, Melvin Smith wrote:
> Here is an attempt. I'm assuming the stack of pads is a singly-linked list
> of pads with children pointing to parents, and multiple children can refer
> to the same parent. If they are created on the fly, the creation of
> a Sub or C
Peter Gibbs wrote:
> I am very much in agreement with this concept in principle. I would like you
> to consider adding a name/tag/id field to all pool headers, containing a
> short text description of the pool, for debugging purposes.
I don't have a problem with that. And yes, it'd definitely he
At 8:56 AM -0400 8/3/02, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
>Sorry for the Wayback Machine...
>
>On Mon, 2002-07-15 at 01:13, Ashley Winters wrote:
>> I decided my next step should be to take a look at the PDDs so I know what's
>> going on. I would expect them to be like a writer's canon for a TV
>>show.
At 04:28 PM 8/2/2002 +0200, Haegl wrote:
>On 2002/08/02 16:11:26 Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >It does on reading. I forget the eloquent explanation about the how or
> >why, but all references bar the leftmost are vivified. (Even inside
> >defined). In effect, all bar the last ref
17 matches
Mail list logo
