kjs wrote:
In order to keep PIR syntax clean, I propose to remove the -> syntax for
method calls, as it is the same as the dot-notation.
Also agreed. Get it into DEPRECATED.pod now so we can remove it after
the next release.
Allison
Andy Dougherty wrote:
I had two questions:
1. Is the order of elements in struct PMC deliberate?
Nope, just the order I copied them in when collapsing the struct.
struct PMC {
Parrot_UInt flags;
UnionVal cache;
VTABLE *vtable;
Nicholas Clark wrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 02:13:11PM -0700, chromatic wrote:
Hoist that declaration up a bit, or C89 compilers will complain. Is there a
GCC warning that we could enable here?
Ah, the beauties of cut-n-paste (which is evil, but allowed in the
process of a refactor).
Author: allison
Date: Thu Sep 20 20:21:11 2007
New Revision: 21440
Modified:
trunk/docs/pdds/pdd17_pmc.pod
Log:
[pdd] Comments from Andy Dougherty: Reversing the order of 2 elements in core
PMC struct, and restoring UnionVal.
Modified: trunk/docs/pdds/pdd17_pmc.pod
==
James Keenan (via RT) wrote:
In the meantime, however, we can provide users with an --abort-step
option to Configure.pl. This would work in a manner analogous to the
current --verbose-step option, i.e., the user gets to name one and
only one step whose failure causes Configure.pl to termi
On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 02:13:11PM -0700, chromatic wrote:
> Hoist that declaration up a bit, or C89 compilers will complain. Is there a
> GCC warning that we could enable here?
-Wdeclaration-after-statement
Sadly it can't be made an error.
Nicholas Clark
On Thursday 20 September 2007 14:07:45 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Modified: branches/pdd15oo/src/ops/object.ops
> ===
>=== --- branches/pdd15oo/src/ops/object.ops (original)
> +++ branches/pdd15oo/src/ops/object.ops Thu Sep 20
On Thursday 20 September 2007 13:43:37 jerry gay wrote:
> {{ PROPOSAL: I'd like to require that all vtable functions be declared
> with "VTABLE" at the beginning of the declaration, similar to "METHOD"
> and "PCCMETHOD". At the very least it's self-documentation. It might
> also be a usefu
from PDD17:
=head3 Defining vtable functions
Vtable functions are defined as C functions within the body of the C
declaration.
STRING *get_string() {...}
void set_string_native(STRING *value) {...}
{{ PROPOSAL: I'd like to require that all vtable functions be declared
with "VT
For x86, you can also combine different runcores. If you try -Cj it
might run even faster. What type of program were you running to get
that slowdown? When I got the amd64 jit to the bare bones state, I got
a 10% increase in speed. If Lua's parrot implementation allows you to
turn the sourc
On Thursday 20 September 2007 06:58:55 Paul Cochrane via RT wrote:
> On Sat Mar 10 19:15:20 2007, coke wrote:
> > From docs/BROKEN.pod.
> >
> >
> > Is this something that needs fixing?
> >
> > (it's in compilers/imcc/main.c)
> There is also a src/main.c which says it is the entry point for to
>
On Thursday 20 September 2007 11:20:45 François PERRAD wrote:
> >Umm, before I make a fool of myself over there ... I've tested
> >this with a few benchmarks. So, maybe I'm missing something
> >essential, but why does --jit-core *slow down* things (5%-10%
> >slower than --computed-goto-core)?
JIT
At 12:00 20/09/2007 -0300, you wrote:
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 20:26:52 +0200
From: Mike Pall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [ANN] Lua on Parrot 0.4.16
To: Lua list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Hi,
Fran?ois PERRAD wrote:
> Any
# New Ticket Created by Jerry Gay
# Please include the string: [perl #45593]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=45593 >
C keeps our declarations and definitions in line, and
makes sure functions and parameters a
On Sat Mar 10 19:15:20 2007, coke wrote:
> From docs/BROKEN.pod.
>
>
> Is this something that needs fixing?
>
> (it's in compilers/imcc/main.c)
There is also a src/main.c which says it is the entry point for to
Parrot programs. Should src/parrot.c be removed?
Folks,
Please find attached a .spec file I've slightly modified from the one
that comes with the Parrot 0.4.16 tarball. It doesn't yet include a
way to make the Parrot:: libraries for Perl 5. Any ideas how to help
it do this?
Right now, I can build it on Fedora 7 with:
QA_RPATHS=0x0002 rpm
# New Ticket Created by Colin Kuskie
# Please include the string: [perl #45565]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=45565 >
I get intermittent failures on this test:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] unified_testing]$ perl t/pe
17 matches
Mail list logo
