On Fr. 23. Feb. 2007, 07:28:38, acalpini wrote:
> this patch adds an 'osname' key to Parrot's own $conf->data, which is
> used in the configure process instead of $^O (and $Config{osname}).
>
> this patch does not affect the current configuration process. in the
> long term, an --osname paramete
On 10/11/2007, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 09 November 2007 09:00:00 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Author: paultcochrane
> > Date: Fri Nov 9 08:59:59 2007
> > New Revision: 22780
> >
> > Modified:
> >trunk/src/objects.c
> >trunk/src/pmc/namespace.pmc
> >trunk/src/
On Fri Nov 09 23:31:56 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> It in no way refers to architecture actually. It refers to the calling
> convention on an architecture(dependent upon implementation). The x86
> method is by pushing arguments onto the stack, and the ppc method is in
> registers. On amd
The patch attached provides a small refactoring of Parrot configuration
step auto::pmc. Package global variable %PMC_PARENTS is replaced by an
element in the auto::pmc class's data structure. Two test files replace
the current placeholder file. I will apply in 2-3 days if no one objects.
Thank
On Nov 10, 2007, at 7:42 AM, James Keenan via RT wrote:
On Fri Nov 09 23:31:56 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It in no way refers to architecture actually. It refers to the
calling
convention on an architecture(dependent upon implementation). The x86
method is by pushing arguments onto the
On Saturday 10 November 2007 05:21:00 Paul Cochrane wrote:
> On 10/11/2007, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm not a huge fan of this, especially when removing the RT #45591 link,
> > but a better solution is to use the format %Ss, which tells Parrot's
> > sprintf engine that it's gettin
On Friday 09 November 2007 23:28:52 Joshua Isom wrote:
> It in no way refers to architecture actually. It refers to the calling
> convention on an architecture(dependent upon implementation). The x86
> method is by pushing arguments onto the stack, and the ppc method is in
> registers. On amd64
On Sat Nov 10 11:55:07 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> How about "stack" and "register", or are there better labels? If it's
> confusing now, it will probably be confusing in the future, especially
for
> everyone who doesn't know it's the platform ABI.
>
So if we were to change:
x86
Patch attached refactors Parrot configuration step auto::headers to
improve testability. 3 additional test files contributed. Will apply
in 2-3 days if there is no objection.
Index: MANIFEST
===
--- MANIFEST(revision 22788)
+++ M
On Saturday 10 November 2007 15:48:08 James Keenan via RT wrote:
> On Sat Nov 10 11:55:07 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > How about "stack" and "register", or are there better labels? If it's
> > confusing now, it will probably be confusing in the future, especially
> > for everyone who doesn
>
> How about "stack" and "register", or are there better labels? If it's
> confusing now, it will probably be confusing in the future, especially for
> everyone who doesn't know it's the platform ABI.
>
That sounds like the essential distinction to me.
While I was researching the topic, I came a
11 matches
Mail list logo
