Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jonathan Sillito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Here is another suggestion (I think I mentioned this in another email) we
>> could support a few different types of continuations. The simplest
>> continuation could be just a saved return address (i.e.
Jonathan Sillito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here is another suggestion (I think I mentioned this in another email) we
> could support a few different types of continuations. The simplest
> continuation could be just a saved return address (i.e. an opcode_t*).
I'm fine with that, if its addition
Jonathan Sillito writes:
> Here is another suggestion (I think I mentioned this in another email) we
> could support a few different types of continuations. The simplest
> continuation could be just a saved return address (i.e. an opcode_t*).
> This would be roughly as lightweight as the current
On Wed, 11 Jun 2003, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> Jonathan Sillito wrote:
>
> Why not just leave the old behaviour?
> IMHO[1]:
> - Make a new class based on Continuations
> - invokecc and such are based on it
[snip]
> [1] I don't know too much about all the HL stuff. But anyway, some
> languages m
> -Original Message-
> From: Leopold Toetsch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Jonathan Sillito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > This patch converts parrot to a continuation passing style.
>
> You seem to be changing current tests WRT invoke - does invoke still
> work as it did? Or more specifi
On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 04:00:07PM -0700, Jonathan Sillito wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jerome Vouillon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > The python interpreter seems rather slow. I get these numbers with the
> > Ocaml bytecode interpreter.
> >
> > mistral-jerome:/tmp > time
On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 04:59:50PM -0700, Robert Spier wrote:
> > > mistral-jerome:/tmp > time python test.py
> > > python test.py 2,59s user 0,00s system 100% cpu 2,582 total
> > > mistral-jerome:/tmp > ocamlc -o tst test.ml; time ./tst
> > > ./tst 0,14s user 0,00s system 106% cp
Jonathan Sillito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This patch converts parrot to a continuation passing style.
You seem to be changing current tests WRT invoke - does invoke still
work as it did? Or more specifically: Do imcc tests and perl6 test still
pass?
> I am not satisfied with the time taken t
> > mistral-jerome:/tmp > time python test.py
> > python test.py 2,59s user 0,00s system 100% cpu 2,582 total
> > mistral-jerome:/tmp > ocamlc -o tst test.ml; time ./tst
> > ./tst 0,14s user 0,00s system 106% cpu 0,131 total
> > mistral-jerome:/tmp > cat test.ml
> > let fo
> -Original Message-
> From: Jerome Vouillon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> The python interpreter seems rather slow. I get these numbers with the
> Ocaml bytecode interpreter.
>
> mistral-jerome:/tmp > time python test.py
> python test.py 2,59s user 0,00s system 100% cpu 2,582 tot
On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 06:07:31PM +, Jonathan Sillito wrote:
> I am not satisfied with the time taken to make a call. I did some rough
> benchmarking and the parrot implementation makes us slower than python
> 2.2.1. The most expensive part of our call is the saveall/restoreall that
> wraps th
# New Ticket Created by Jonathan Sillito
# Please include the string: [perl #22633]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=22633 >
(This conflicts with "[perl #22592] [PATCH] Introduce macros for register
access." b
12 matches
Mail list logo
