This is because the fact of being an :outer sub promotes its
context's C to a C, whether or not it
ever creates a closure. When the C is invoked to return,
it does no unwinding, leaving the control stack untouched on exit. The
action is effectively popped (and leaked, I'll wager), but it is ne
I believe befunge is the example I was thinking of.
On Mar 4, 2006, at 12:08 PM, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
On Mar 1, 2006, at 14:46, Will Coleda wrote:
We already have at least one language implementation that used to
work just fine using the stack, but has been crippled with various
depreca
> $ time ./parrot -j fib.pir 30
> Fib(30): 1346269
>
> real0m4.774s
>
> Ok that's slow (AMD [EMAIL PROTECTED], unoptimized parrot build), you are
> right. But:
>
> $ time ./parrot -Cj fib.pir 30
> Fib(30): 1346269
-Cj does not produce different results than -j on the Win32 build of
Parrot.
On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 at 08:52 -0800, Bernhard Schmalhofer via RT...:
could you send your changes as a patch to me or to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
my hack was not how anyone should implement it.
(I was just trying to get it to compile)
Could you additionally add your test results to PLATFORMS?
I tr
On Mar 1, 2006, at 14:46, Will Coleda wrote:
We already have at least one language implementation that used to work
just fine using the stack, but has been crippled with various
deprecations over the last few years.
If you are speaking of forth here, then no. That was broken by design.
It j
On Feb 28, 2006, at 19:59, Nicolas Cannasse wrote:
Yes I understand that there is different cores for Parrot, but what are
the flags appropriate for doing some comparisons ? Some flags might do
very good in some cases and quite bad in some others. They might also
take tremendous time to JIT the
Hi David,
could you send your changes as a patch to me or to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Could you additionally add your test results to PLATFORMS?
I suppose there needs to be some kind of config check for older 'libc5'.
The hints you passed to Configure.pl could probably also be put into a
hints file.
On Mar 1, 2006, at 1:26, Karl Forner wrote:
On 2/25/06, Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> fill the function body of Parrot_register_move() (src/utils.c 633
ff).
Parrot is now using this function [1] for recursive tailcalls. There
are
2 new tests in t/compilers/imcc/imcpasm/o
On Feb 28, 2006, at 23:13, chromatic wrote:
Hi there,
I just managed to get Valgrind working on my Linux PPC box. Are
Valgrind
(memcheck, cachegrind, etc) reports useful from various platforms? If
so, is
there a good example PIR file to run that stresses sufficient code (or
should
someon
On Feb 28, 2006, at 21:59, Tim Bunce wrote:
This can happen if the machine is busy.
Okay. Can't the test be made more robust? Or emit a warning note?
Probably yes with increased testing time (longer sleep) - a warning
note is always ok.
leo
On Feb 28, 2006, at 19:27, Andy Dougherty wrote:
Executive summary -- svn co on Solaris 8 is still *slow*! I"ll stick
to fetching snapshots with wget.
Dumb question? Why 'svn co' instead of incrementally updating with 'svn
up'?
leo
# New Ticket Created by Bernhard Schmalhofer
# Please include the string: [perl #38670]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# https://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=38670 >
This was posted in p6i by Steve Peters, [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Thanks to the work
12 matches
Mail list logo
