Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Andy Dougherty wrote:
[ \d+\.0{6} vs \d+ ]
> I expect these are a result of Leo's recent work on the perl PMCs, rather
> than a Solaris or perl version issue. There were similar problems in the
> base test suite for a bit.
Yes. Sorry
Steve Fink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > It would be tempting to change all pushtop,pushbottom,poptop,popbottom
>> > ops into ones that had the start register and number of registers as
>> > arguments.
>>
>> No. These ops are used to save registers for the caller and not for
>> argument passing.
Andy Dougherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This fixes an apparent obvious typo in the Jako Makefile.
Thanks, applied.
leo
Gordon Henriksen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> + * ge_n_ic_ic => ge_nc_ic
This should of course read ge_n_nc_ic on the RHS.
>
> | A C D E G I|
> | N S T V|
>
WTF ...
My, is this a conspiracy to drag -internals onto -language to make it look alive? :)
You guys almost made me drop my coffee mug...
--
Robin Berjon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Research Scientist, Expway http://expway.com/
7FC0 6F5F D864 EFB8 08CE 8E74 58E6 D5DB 4889 2488
Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ... spending the morning of your 36th birthday
Happy birthday to you and us.
l - "A full year has passed, hasn't it?" - eo
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Gordon Henriksen wrote:
> (Moving to internals. Definitely not a language discussion.)
I dunno--while not a language discussion, it does help the people who're
involved understand the difficulties in what they're asking for. (Larry,
luckily, is aware of this stuff, but many
Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> This sounds like the beginning of a whole set of things like "Warning
>> #238: suboptimal implementation of xxx. Are you sure you know what you
>> are doing?"
>
> If the user turns on optimization and the compiler finds such code, yes,
> why not.
SBCL
Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Gordon Henriksen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> | A C D E G I|
>> | N S T V|
>>
>
> WTF ...
Hangman -- the goal is to guess the
[charnames.pm is unavailable in 5.00503.]
Commenting out the 'use charnames' in String.pm, I only get two failures
for languages/perl6 with perl5.00503. They are
t/compiler/b_4.p6, which is
sub main() {
print "\c[^J]"; # Control-Char
print "\c[REVERSE SOLIDUS]\n"; # Named Unicode
pr
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Ph. Marek wrote:
> > You can, of course, stop even potential optimization once the first "I can
> > change the rules" operation is found, but since even assignment can change
> > the rules that's where we are right now. We'd like to get better by
> > optimizing based on what w
On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 11:49:52AM -0400, Gordon Henriksen wrote:
> Austin Hastings wrote:
>
> > Given that threads are present, and given the continuation based
> > nature of the interpreter, I assume that code blocks can be closured.
> > So why not allocate JITed methods on the heap and manage t
On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 03:30:06PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
[snipped]
>
> No, I think Parrot will still only JIT I&N registers. Optimization
> includes way more than just JIT.
>
Do you mean that array accesses will not be jitted? If an array is declared
exact type (not subclassable) and that
# New Ticket Created by Steve Clark
# Please include the string: [perl #23819]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=23819 >
Attached is a patch file of a couple of trivial janitorial-type fixes
to pdump-related
# New Ticket Created by Andy Dougherty
# Please include the string: [perl #23822]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=23822 >
The following patch eliminates the following (correct!) warnings during
the Configure
David Storrs wrote:
> This discussion seems to contain two separate problems, and I'm not
> always sure which one is being addressed. The components I see are:
>
> 1) Detecting when the assumptions have been violated and the code has
>to be changed; and,
>
> 2) Actually making the change af
--- Gordon Henriksen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Storrs wrote:
>
> > This discussion seems to contain two separate problems, and I'm not
> > always sure which one is being addressed. The components I see
> are:
> >
> > 1) Detecting when the assumptions have been violated and the code
> h
Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> ... spending the morning of your 36th birthday
>
> Happy birthday to you and us.
Thanks.
18 matches
Mail list logo
