On 01/08/07, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 31 July 2007 23:23:22 Paul Cochrane wrote:
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> > This is what I thought. However, making the change made suncc
> > happier, which made me wonder if it worked on other platforms (it
> > seemed to) and hence why I asked. Be
Am Mittwoch, 1. August 2007 00:39 schrieb Bram Geron:
> Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> > It might be on the stack or just in a CPU register. While we have
> > code to mark all possible pointers on the stack, this isn't generally
> > true for CPU registers, as that's rather system-dependent.
> >
> > See a
# New Ticket Created by James Keenan
# Please include the string: [perl #44315]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=44315 >
On Jul 31, 2007, at 10:40 PM, Jerry Gay via RT wrote:
>
> i do want to have the ability
# New Ticket Created by Paul Cochrane
# Please include the string: [perl #44317]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=44317 >
In r20380 I committed a change:
[config] Making explicit casts to INTVAL to remove msv
Rejecting your test bug, which makes it a success.
At 18:32 + 7/31/07, peter baylies wrote:
>On 7/31/07, Paul Cochrane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > return (fabs(x - y) <= fabs(x + y)*EPSILON) ? 1 : 0;
>
>That may not be a bad idea, but I think there's a bug in that code --
>take, for example, the case where x and y both equal approximatel
if the values you are storing in floats are known to be integers of a size less
then the mantissa for he floating type then exact comparisons work just as
expected. Storing 10 digit phone numbers as floats is an example of this.
There must be some way to access exact comparisons in the languag
# New Ticket Created by Colin Kuskie
# Please include the string: [perl #44321]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=44321 >
The attached patch marks the 3rd argument of substr as optional so the 2
argument versi
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 12:08:16PM -0700, Colin Kuskie wrote:
> The attached patch marks the 3rd argument of substr as
> optional so the 2 argument version of substr will work.
>
> .sub 'substr'
> .param string x
> -.param int start
> -.param int len
> +.param intstart
> +
I'm not sure if 0.0 == -0.0 is true on all platforms. It should be for
IEEE754 compliance but in the real world...
It might be nice to throw in a few tests to see if the example code
below would have the same results on all platforms.
--
#include
#include
int main ()
{
printf("0.0 : %f\n"
This proposal is the result of several days of IRC talks and research
into how tests are handled by Parrot and Pugs, and how to reorganize
the pugs test suite to make it more amenable to testing to other
compilers.
Proposal:
Each test in the test suite should be broken down into functional or
sem
Reworked the patch according to pmichaud's instructions for using :opt_flag.
Waiting for the results of my testing proposal before making tests available.
Colin
Index: languages/perl6/src/builtins/string.pir
===
--
On Aug 1, 2007, at 2:29 AM, Paul Cochrane wrote:
After some more testing that seems correct. Andy mentioned to me
yesterday about configuring with --cgoto=0 and this allows parrot to
compile on Solaris with suncc.
Yet another example where we need to be working on compilers, not
platforms.
On 7/28/07, via RT chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> # New Ticket Created by chromatic
> # Please include the string: [perl #44229]
> # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
> # http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=44229 >
>
>
> Profiling some of the PGE
On Wednesday 01 August 2007 20:40:55 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [tcl]
> Convert stringToList from PIR to C. (could still use a little TLC)
I don't know if this is hideous or brilliant. PIR is *almost* valid C!
-- c
I'm pretty sure 0.0 always equals -0.0. I think it's part of the c
specification. Now, on OpenBSD, you can't print -0.0, as it will print
0.0 instead which is really annoying. This is with at least 3.8 but I
don't know if it's been changed since then. Anyway, to test for -0.0
instead of 0.0
I just committed a patch that autodetects the HASATTRIBUTE_xxx
attributes for GCC. It's kinda funky under Solaris, but still passes.
Please let me know what happens on other platforms. I'm off to bed.
xoxo,
Andy
--
Andy Lester => [EMAIL PROTECTED] => www.petdance.com => AIM:petdance
17 matches
Mail list logo
