Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 10:34 AM +0100 11/27/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
See also subject "Too many opcodes".
>> [...]
>>
Could you undo this please? Now is not the time to be trimming ops out.
OTOH, it won't hurt anyone and it is already in.
So why bother, unless of course there is a technical reaso
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
[...]
Just if you had 32 N regs used before. It's using only one additional
register.
[...]
I did not touch any PMC ops.
You are of course right, maybe I hadn't had enough coffee this morning.
Sorry for the bother, and keep up the good work.
tom (who is going back into shy-
lps in other cases aswell, where the header is somehow
predefined and its not possible to add some shebang magic or a use-
clause to indicate some special treatement...
Would such a feature be useful at all ?
Thomas Seiler
d the remaining
test programms
Target Phase:
- Copy that directory to the target
- Run the configuration phase and get the Config file
The challange would be to get the miniparrot running on the target.
All the rest should be covered by the "normal" Parrot Configuration Probing.
This is abo
Gregory Keeney wrote:
Thomas Seiler wrote:
Couldn't we split the probing into two phases ?
The problem is that getting stuff on and off your target host is not
always trivial. [...]
It is especially not true in the embedded world. Until I have parrot IO
libraries, I am not going to be ge
d am I in
And is it possible to use these in macros aswell?
Thomas Seiler
a string in the language
is was originally written, to access it from other languages, we should
use an interface that allows us to index it via just that string.
All the other logic needed to import stuff should be left to a module
for that given language. It knows better wich types have to be converted
which functions need wrappers, etc ...
just had to give my 2 cents on namespaces :)
Thomas Seiler
