Chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh yeah, the goal of this exercise was to cache the hash,
Thanks, applied.
> It still complains about passing constant C-strings to
> hash_put()
fixed.
leo
Oh yeah, the goal of this exercise was to cache the hash, not build it
every time. Here's a version which does that and passes the tests with
GC_DEBUG. It still complains about passing constant C-strings to
hash_put(), but that's a different story.
-- c
Index: include/parrot/interpreter.h
On Fri, 2004-08-13 at 11:58, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> When that's fixed (or hash's memory is malloced) then the keys have to
> be declared with CONST_STRING() or - as these are C strings in the first
> place, you create a custom hash with C-string keys. See the API in
> hash.c:new_hash_x() or j
chromatic wrote:
On Fri, 2004-08-13 at 09:23, Dan Sugalski wrote:
This hash should either be allocated from constant PMCs that don't
get GC'd, or put in the root set, then.
Just to be specific then, the steps would be:
- allocate a new PMC
- mark it as constant (PMC_constant_FLAG)
That would
On Fri, 2004-08-13 at 09:23, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> This hash should either be allocated from constant PMCs that don't
> get GC'd, or put in the root set, then.
Just to be specific then, the steps would be:
- allocate a new PMC
- mark it as constant (PMC_constant_FLAG) or call th
At 5:16 PM +0100 8/10/04, Nicholas Clark wrote:
On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 03:11:53PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 11:57 AM -0700 8/9/04, chromatic wrote:
>Is there a particular hash lookup style you have in mind? If there's
>something similar in the code already, I can copy, paste, and modify t
At 1:11 PM +0200 8/13/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
chromatic wrote:
No, not a lot of examples. Here's a patch that's somewhat naive but
passes all tests on my machine (Linux PPC).
I'm a bit concerned about the initialization code, especially the static
hash, but it's more important to have code avai
chromatic wrote:
No, not a lot of examples. Here's a patch that's somewhat naive but
passes all tests on my machine (Linux PPC).
I'm a bit concerned about the initialization code, especially the static
hash, but it's more important to have code available for review than
improvement than to wait un
On Mon, 2004-08-09 at 12:11, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> You could look at what we do for class registration -- that code
> might be similar. I don't think we've got too much at the C level
> that messes around with parrot hashes yet, though.
No, not a lot of examples. Here's a patch that's somewhat
On Tue, 2004-08-10 at 09:16, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> Does the structure change at runtime? (ie can one register new dynamically
> loaded NCI helper code?)
If I understand what Dan wants, no. Unless the platform has a JIT that
can generate stubs for all valid NCI signatures, it has to fall back t
On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 03:11:53PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 11:57 AM -0700 8/9/04, chromatic wrote:
> >Is there a particular hash lookup style you have in mind? If there's
> >something similar in the code already, I can copy, paste, and modify the
> >generator trivially.
>
> You could loo
At 11:57 AM -0700 8/9/04, chromatic wrote:
On Mon, 2004-08-09 at 11:36, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Right now the master function in nci.c that figures out if we have a
thunking function for a given function signature does a linear search
looking for a match. This is pretty nasty and gets slower the mor
On Mon, 2004-08-09 at 11:36, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Right now the master function in nci.c that figures out if we have a
> thunking function for a given function signature does a linear search
> looking for a match. This is pretty nasty and gets slower the more
> functions are in the search list
# New Ticket Created by Dan Sugalski
# Please include the string: [perl #31026]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org:80/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=31026 >
Right now the master function in nci.c that figures out if we have a
thunking functi
14 matches
Mail list logo
