Juergen Boemmels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I'm always running nci.t.
> How do you do that?
$ head -5 nci_test.c
#include
/*
* cc -shared -fpic nci_test.c -o libnci.so -g
* export LD_LIBRARY_PATH=.
*/
> $ make libnci.so
> make: *** No rule to
Steve Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Attached is a patch to tidyup a couple of things in longopt.c
Thanks, applied.
leo
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If we can get things nailed down for a friday release (which I'd really
> like) I propose we name the thing "Dubloon" (or doubloon, whichever is
> actually correct)
Surely nailed to the mast if it's going to be called Doubloon.
Hi,
I did some experiments to get parrot compile on Borland C++
Builder. I got it working until the linking of libparrot.lib (and with
some ugly tricks even got a running make test). The attached patch are
the Changes to Configure and Makefiles which are needed to get there.
Before I want to comm
chromatic wrote:
> The thinking at the last design meeting was that you'd explicitly say
> "Consider this class closed; I won't muck with it in this application"
> at compile time if you need the extra optimization in a particular
> application.
In Dylan, this is called a sealed class. It tells t
I'm browsing through the tinderbox reports to see if we've got everything
locked down for a release. Looks reasonably good--we've a number of Unix
variants and Win32 building and testing green. There's a lot of nasty type
mismatch errors under windows though, which I think indicate nasty
proble
--- chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday, September 18, 2003, at 07:49 AM, Austin Hastings wrote:
>
> > Sounds like a potential keyword, or perhaps a ubiquitous method, or
> > both. But how to differentiate "sealed under optimization" versus
> > "sealed under inheritance"?
>
> I do
On Thursday, September 18, 2003, at 12:33 PM, Gordon Henriksen wrote:
Ah, shouldn't optimization be automatic? Much preferrable to provide
opt-out optimizations instead of opt-in optimizations.
No. That's why I tend to opt-out of writing in C and opt-in to writing
Perl.
Perl (all versions) and
--- Andy Wardley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> chromatic wrote:
> > The thinking at the last design meeting was that you'd explicitly
> say
> > "Consider this class closed; I won't muck with it in this
> application"
> > at compile time if you need the extra optimization in a particular
> > applica
On Thursday, September 18, 2003, at 07:49 AM, Austin Hastings wrote:
Sounds like a potential keyword, or perhaps a ubiquitous method, or
both. But how to differentiate "sealed under optimization" versus
"sealed under inheritance"?
I don't understand the question.
The point is not for module autho
I just got my setup working here in my new home town of Seattle, WA
and I noticed we are about to release a new Parrot. I wanted to make
sure Jako was working right, but there has aparently been some
changes to imcc that make its output unacceptable now.
In an attempt to get up to speed on what is
On Sep-18, Juergen Boemmels wrote:
> Following things were done:
> - s,/,\${slash},g
Ugh. How difficult would it be to have Configure do this rewriting
automatically? (Or rewrite to whatever it is you need, instead)? This
just clutters up the makefiles a little too much, IMO.
> - remove of && in
On Sep-18, Gregor N. Purdy wrote:
> I just got my setup working here in my new home town of Seattle, WA
> and I noticed we are about to release a new Parrot. I wanted to make
> sure Jako was working right, but there has aparently been some
> changes to imcc that make its output unacceptable now.
>
Andy --
I didn't see anything wrong in the code, but I added some parens.
Let me know if you still have trouble...
Regards,
-- Gregor
On Mon, 2003-09-15 at 08:51, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> On Solaris 8, with Sun's supplied perl5.00503 and with Sun's cc, I get the
> following error when trying t
Steve --
I've made some progress in fixing the Jako compiler. Modules don't
work yet, but the first few examples compile and run.
My email was mainly to point out that the $PARROT/examples/
mentioned (not part of Jako) are b0rken. I've got my hands full
trying to improve Jako, so I threw to the l
I came across this posting:
Third Virtual Machine Research and Technology Symposium 2004 (VM'04)
May 6-7, 2004
San Jose Hyatt, San Jose, CA
The VM'04 Program Committee invites you to contribute refereed papers
and work-in-progress reports to the third USENI
On Sep-18, Gregor N. Purdy wrote:
> Steve --
>
> I've made some progress in fixing the Jako compiler. Modules don't
> work yet, but the first few examples compile and run.
>
> My email was mainly to point out that the $PARROT/examples/
> mentioned (not part of Jako) are b0rken. I've got my hands
On Sep-18, Steve Fink wrote:
> On Sep-18, Gregor N. Purdy wrote:
> > I really don't think we should ship with broken examples. They
> > should be fixed or removed if it isn't worth it...
>
> Ah! Sorry, I misunderstood. I'll take a quick look at them now.
> Thanks!
Ok, they're "fixed". The IO exam
On Sep-16, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> [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
> ...
> On balance, I wonder if these tests should simply be skipped if $] < 5.6.
Ok, those t
Gregor N. Purdy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ... I noticed that sub.pasm
> outputs this:
> Hello subroutine
> No entries on ControlStack!
I can't reproduce this:
$ parrot examples/assembly/sub.pasm
Hello subroutine
Hello subroutine
> Also, the following other examples appear broken, too:
>
On Sep-19, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> Gregor N. Purdy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ... I noticed that sub.pasm
> > outputs this:
>
> > Hello subroutine
> > No entries on ControlStack!
>
> I can't reproduce this:
> $ parrot examples/assembly/sub.pasm
> Hello subroutine
> Hello subroutine
Beca
21 matches
Mail list logo
