I just wrote up the binarytrees test in pir, based on the c version.
Although I haven't waited more than twenty minutes yet, I can't get it
working with the argument being 16(what they test with) beyond printing
the first line. The results I'm getting, it's slow, and I don't have
enough ram.
On Dec 11, 2005, at 0:53, Joshua Isom wrote:
Since it's not documented at all that I've seen, either for or
against, I'm wondering what's the arguments to macros are supposed to
be. Consider this code.
.sub main :main
.IfElse(TRUE,
print "True\n"
,
print "False\n"
On Dec 11, 2005, at 0:49, Joshua Isom wrote:
The documentation thing I've noticed too. A big reason I use perl is
there's a lot of documentation and I was able to teach myself. That's
not very easy with a lot of other languages. I don't deal at all with
PAST because the best reference docu
Joshua Isom wrote:
I just wrote up the binarytrees test in pir, based on the c version.
Although I haven't waited more than twenty minutes yet, I can't get it
working with the argument being 16(what they test with) beyond printing
the first line. The results I'm getting, it's slow, and I don't
Just to change CREDITS, please.
Joshua Hoblitt via RT wrote:
According to our records, your request regarding
"[PATCH t/perl/Parrot_IO.t] Fix Failing Test #23"
has been resolved.
If you have any further questions or concerns, please respond to this message.
For other topics, please create
Thanks, applied with modifications. Also removed pointer to old rx ops.
On Dec 10, 2005, at 8:11 PM, Joshua Hoblitt wrote:
Someone on #parrot just pointed out that the docs at
http://www.parrotcode.org/docs/ops/ have been b0rken by the recent
tree
reorganization(s). I've already submitted a
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
I've timed Ack(3, 9) with an optimized Parrot build:
Python 13.7
Parrot -j 15.3
Parrot -C 13.8
Down now (r10445) at:
parrot -C ack.pir 5.7s
parrot -C binarytrees 16 1m14s
That is a little code cleanup was good for 100% speedup ;-)
This is
I was wondering... Are there plans to have parrot securely execute
remote code, similar to JVM, so a person can have a parrot plug-in in
their browser (for example), and run parrot 'applets' with the
confidence that they are safe?
Or is this not really part of the plan?
If there's information about
On 12/11/05, Bryan Burgers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was wondering... Are there plans to have parrot securely execute
> remote code, similar to JVM, so a person can have a parrot plug-in in
> their browser (for example), and run parrot 'applets' with the
> confidence that they are safe?
> Or i
On Dec 11, 2005, at 17:01, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
I've timed Ack(3, 9) with an optimized Parrot build:
Python 13.7
Parrot -j 15.3
Parrot -C 13.8
Down now (r10445) at:
parrot -C ack.pir 5.7s
parrot -C binarytrees 16 1m14s
./parrot -C ack
On Dec 11, 2005, at 22:25, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
./parrot -C ack.pir4.9s
./parrot -C binarytrees.pir 1659.1s
And another f'up me: should we collect these shootout benchmarks in a
separate directory, with tests attached (with reduced N aka reduced
runtime)?
Are there p
On Sun, Dec 11, 2005 at 11:07:32PM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
>
> On Dec 11, 2005, at 22:25, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
>
> >./parrot -C ack.pir4.9s
> >./parrot -C binarytrees.pir 1659.1s
>
> And another f'up me: should we collect these shootout benchmarks in a
> separate dir
It could be very beneficial for debugging. My debugger tends to be a
lot of print statements, so something like
.globalconst int DEBUG = 1
.macro IfDebug(level, code)
unless .level >= DEBUG goto .$endif
.code
.local $endif:
.endm
.IfDebug(1,
print "var = "
Roger Browne:
> Unfortunately I could only get to Ack(3, 6) before parrot aborted with
> "maximum recursion depth exceeded", at recursion depth 1000.
Alternative:
#!/usr/bin/perl
use strict;
use warnings;
use Memoize;
{ local ($,, $\) = ("\t", "\n");
sub ack {
return $_[1] +1 if 0 ==
On Thu, 2005-12-08 at 17:16 +0100, Ron Blaschke wrote:
> The Free Lunch Is Over: A Fundamental Turn Toward Concurrency in Software."
> [1] He starts with "The biggest sea change in software development since
> the OO revolution is knocking at the door, and its name is Concurrency."
Perhaps have a
On Dec 11, 2005, at 23:45, Joshua Isom wrote:
It could be very beneficial for debugging. My debugger tends to be a
lot of print statements, so something like
.globalconst int DEBUG = 1
.macro IfDebug(level, code)
unless .level >= DEBUG goto .$endif
.code
.local $endif
On Dec 10, 2005, at 19:18, Dr.Ruud wrote:
Roger Browne:
Unfortunately I could only get to Ack(3, 6) before parrot aborted with
"maximum recursion depth exceeded", at recursion depth 1000.
Alternative:
use Memoize;
Sure. And there is a (inline) memoized perl Ack already, which is one
Are there plans to submit these tests?
leo
From the faq...
Please will you include my favourite language?
Maybe we will when you write 15 of the benchmark programs in your
favourite language, and contribute them to "The Computer Language
Shootout" :-)
From the all benchmarks page...
And r
# New Ticket Created by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
# Please include the string: [perl #37887]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# https://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=37887 >
---
osname= linux
osvers= 2.4.26
arch= i486-linux
cc= cc
---
Flags:
cat
# New Ticket Created by Joshua Isom
# Please include the string: [perl #37888]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# https://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=37888 >
With the binarytrees test(Leo's modifications), using -j causes a seg
fault on FreeBSD
As it is not easy to get the diff from this email, here it goes really
in attach.
I know the text is not the best, but it is something to start with.
Parrot Assembler via RT wrote:
Greetings,
This message has been automatically generated in response to the
creation of a parrotbug regarding:
On Sun, 2005-12-11 at 11:24 -0800, via RT wrote:
> Index: docs/tests.pod
Thanks, applied as 10451, along with some other spelling corrections.
-- c
Attached patch.
Parrot Assembler via RT wrote:
Greetings,
This message has been automatically generated in response to the
creation of a parrotbug regarding:
"Make smoke tests give progress indication"
There is no need to reply to this message right now. Your ticket has been
assigned
# New Ticket Created by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
# Please include the string: [perl #37891]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# https://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=37891 >
---
osname= linux
osvers= 2.4.26
arch= i486-linux
cc= cc
---
Flags:
cat
Applied as r10455.
On Dec 11, 2005, at 4:46 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (via RT) wrote:
Running make smoke as it is at the moment is too much boring as we
don't have any progress indication at all.
We requested Test::TAP::HTMLMatrix authors help (gaal and
nothingmuch) and they promise us a new r
Leopold Toetsch:
> Dr.Ruud:
>> Roger Browne:
>>> Unfortunately I could only get to Ack(3, 6) before parrot aborted
>>> with "maximum recursion depth exceeded", at recursion depth 1000.
>>
>> Alternative: use Memoize;
>
> Sure. And there is a (inline) memoized perl Ack already, which is one
> of th
26 matches
Mail list logo
