Leopold Toetsch writes:
> Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > After many months of lying dormant, I figured I'd get my act together
> > and adapt this patch to the few recent modifications. And this time,
> > I'm posting a benchmark!
>
> Wow, thanks.
>
> Some comments:
>
> > -b_PObj_
Melvin Smith writes:
> The downside to our implementation is in the return continuation case.
> The common case is to create the continuation that you plan to
> return with, and you already know there will be no need for
> copy-on-write in most cases because typically the execution
> path will retu
At 06:37 PM 1/7/2004 -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
Leopold Toetsch writes:
> Jeff Clites <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Jan 7, 2004, at 1:46 AM, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> >> That part is already answered: create a buffer_like structure.
> >> *But* again register backing stacks are *not* in the interp
This patch re-implements the register backing stacks as PObjs (so they
can be garbage-collected), honors their COW flags, and adds them to the
interpreter context (where they should be, honest!).
As a healthy side-effect, it encapsulates their behavior nicely into
register.c, when before their gut
Michal Wallace writes:
> On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, Luke Palmer wrote:
>
> > Should go something like this:
> >
> > .sub _main
> > .local object Cat
> > .local object felix
> > newclass Cat, "Cat"
> > find_type $I0, "Cat"
> > felix = new $I0
> > # ...
>
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, Luke Palmer wrote:
> Should go something like this:
>
> .sub _main
> .local object Cat
> .local object felix
> newclass Cat, "Cat"
> find_type $I0, "Cat"
> felix = new $I0
> # ...
> .end
Thanks, but that doesn't work eit
Leopold Toetsch writes:
> Jeff Clites <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Jan 7, 2004, at 1:46 AM, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> >> That part is already answered: create a buffer_like structure.
> >> *But* again register backing stacks are *not* in the interpreter
> >> context.
>
> > I don't understand w
Michal Wallace writes:
> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> > *) Creating new objects involves calling the ->init vtable entry *on
> > the class*. Because of this each class gets a custom vtable where the
> > init method has been swapped out for one (from objects.c) that
> > creates a new
On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> *) Creating new objects involves calling the ->init vtable entry *on
> the class*. Because of this each class gets a custom vtable where the
> init method has been swapped out for one (from objects.c) that
> creates a new object instead.
Well, cool! How d
# New Ticket Created by Bernhard Schmalhofer
# Please include the string: [perl #24837]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=24837 >
Hi,
it's nice to have some code in the Parrot CVS.
This patch adds some .cvsig
Jeff Clites <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 7, 2004, at 1:46 AM, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
>> That part is already answered: create a buffer_like structure.
>> *But* again register backing stacks are *not* in the interpreter
>> context.
> I don't understand what you are getting at. They are not p
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is entirely a matter of opinion and data design ...
Yep, that's it. The current behavior additionally is inconsistent.
Retrieving a reference (that is Parrot) out of a non-existant hash key
gives and unrelated new PerlUndef, when assigning to that, n
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeff Clites [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 12:52 AM
> To: Adam Thomason
> Cc: Internals List
> Subject: Re: [perl #24829] RE: [PATCH] PPC JIT fixes
> [re-send] (Modified
> by Jeff Clites)
>
> 1) In gdb, break on runops_jit, then
On Jan 7, 2004, at 1:46 AM, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It makes each chunk into a subclass of Buffer like so:
struct RegisterChunkBuf {
size_t used;
PObj* next;
};
That part is already answered: create a buffer_like structure.
*But* again
At 23:10 -0500 1/5/04, Gordon Henriksen wrote:
Data corruption unacceptable? I disagree.
I get the feeling people just aren't reading what's been written, or
aren't keeping it all straight.
*User* and *program* data integrity is not our problem -- not only
are we not guaranteeing that, I'd be fi
At 1:32 PM -0800 1/6/04, Jeff Clites wrote:
On Jan 6, 2004, at 9:25 AM, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Arthur Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
I am wondering how the references to hash elements are planned to be
done? The call to set_ must somehow be delayed until the time is right.
$foo = \$hash{
Bernhard Schmalhofer (via RT) wrote:
besides skiing in the Austrian alps, I have worked some on my port of GNU m4
during the holidays.
Lot of snow now :)
config/gen/makefiles/m4.in:
I missed that one in the first place, added now.
So (hopefully) all is in (I dropped empty dirs and vims swap f
At 23:10 -0500 1/5/04, Gordon Henriksen wrote:
Data corruption unacceptable? I disagree. It depends on the contract
put forward by the language in question. Notably, Perl makes no such
guarantees thus far, being as how it doesn't (any longer) run in a
traditional threaded model. Successfully thr
Arthur Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
> I am wondering how the references to hash elements are planned to be
> done? The call to set_ must somehow be delayed until the time is right.
Here is a pointer to the last discussion on that topic:
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 17:50:00 +0200
Matt Fowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Indeed this fix works, so I submitted it through the official channels
> for you.
Thanks, applied,
leo
# New Ticket Created by Matt Fowles
# Please include the string: [perl #24830]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=24830 >
All~
Indeed this fix works, so I submitted it through the official channels
for you.
d
Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It makes each chunk into a subclass of Buffer like so:
> struct RegisterChunkBuf {
> size_t used;
> PObj* next;
> };
That part is already answered: create a buffer_like structure.
*But* again register backing stacks are *not* in the
On Jan 6, 2004, at 3:28 PM, Adam Thomason (via RT) wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Jeff Clites [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2003 4:30 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PATCH] PPC JIT fixes [re-send] (Modified by Jeff Clites)
7) I don't expect anything here to br
23 matches
Mail list logo
