At 7:20 PM +0100 11/30/04, Thomas Seiler wrote:
At Tue 30 Nov 6:22pm, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Architecture changes aren't an option we're entertaining until after we're
functionally complete.
Just would like to ask a related question:
Is a change that invalidates an existing precompiled bytecode but
At Tue 30 Nov 6:22pm, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Architecture changes aren't an option we're entertaining until after we're
> functionally complete.
Just would like to ask a related question:
Is a change that invalidates an existing precompiled bytecode but not
the source code of it
considered as an ar
At 5:30 PM +0100 11/30/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 9:15 PM +0100 11/23/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Below inline/attached are some thoughts WRT the subject.
leo
Lexicals, continuations, and register allocation
1) Recent discussions have shown t
> >>
> >>leo
> >>
> >>
> >>Lexicals, continuations, and register allocation
> >>
> >>1) Recent discussions have shown that we obviously can't handle all
> >>the side effects of continuations correctly. Reusing preserved
> >
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 9:15 PM +0100 11/23/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
>>Below inline/attached are some thoughts WRT the subject.
>>
>>leo
>>
>>
>>Lexicals, continuations, and register allocation
>>
>>1) Recent discus
Dan~
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:22:29 -0500, Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 9:15 PM +0100 11/23/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
>
>
> >Below inline/attached are some thoughts WRT the subject.
> >
> >leo
> >
> >
> >Lexicals, cont
At 9:15 PM +0100 11/23/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Below inline/attached are some thoughts WRT the subject.
leo
Lexicals, continuations, and register allocation
1) Recent discussions have shown that we obviously can't handle all
the side effects of continuations correctly. Reusing preserved
Bill Coffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> two possible interferences of different kinds, with additional coding
>> overhead ...
> ... What makes it a
> little complicated is how do these "ubiquetous" symbols interact with
> the non-ubuiquitous? Those arcs are needed for this.
Yes that's what
Chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-11-24 at 15:04 +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
>> Quite a lot of us would just like parrot COMPLETE and CORRECT before
>> starting to put a lot of effort into how fast it is.
> I'd settle for it compiling (#32514).
Well, having just a short look a
Matt Fowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 17:25:05 +0100, Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> a = b + c + foo()
> I am not sure that they are as rare as you think.
Does it matter? They are no lexicals, you can't refetch them. So they
get a distinct storage. When f
On Wed, 2004-11-24 at 15:04 +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> Quite a lot of us would just like parrot COMPLETE and CORRECT before
> starting to put a lot of effort into how fast it is.
I'd settle for it compiling (#32514). If not for the broken build, I'd
have poked at three or four small TODO ite
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 09:39:27 +0100, Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bill Coffman wrote:
> > On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 23:26:39 +0100, Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
>
> > Keep in mind that you don't actually have to add all those CFG edges.
> > You already know precisely th
Leo~
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 17:25:05 +0100, Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matt Fowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Leo~
>
> > On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 16:42:31 +0100, Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >> And as a side effect it will make Dan's evils subs compile, because
Matt Fowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Leo~
> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 16:42:31 +0100, Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> And as a side effect it will make Dan's evils subs compile, because
>> long-lived lexicals already have their storage aka register. Only temps
>> need a register alloca
Leo~
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 16:42:31 +0100, Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And as a side effect it will make Dan's evils subs compile, because
> long-lived lexicals already have their storage aka register. Only temps
> need a register allocated.
What happens to temps that need to cross
Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 09:45:27AM -0500, Ken Fox wrote:
>>As long as an architecture change is on the
>> table, might as well make it a doozy.
> Quite a lot of us would just like parrot COMPLETE and CORRECT before
> starting to
Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm probably going to get shot for suggesting this, but if each interpreter
> has a count of the number of full continuations invoked (ie non-return
> continuations), then I think that we can know when we *haven't*.
Nobody gets shot - and - interesting
Ken Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Leopold Toetsch wrote:
>>+-+--+
>>| ctp | interpreter state|
>>+-+--+
>> |
>> ++
>>|
>> +--+-+---+--+
>> |
On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 09:45:27AM -0500, Ken Fox wrote:
>As long as an architecture change is on the
> table, might as well make it a doozy.
Quite a lot of us would just like parrot COMPLETE and CORRECT before
starting to put a lot of effort into how fast it is.
PLEASE c
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
+-+--+
| ctp | interpreter state|
+-+--+
|
++
|
+--+-+---+--+
| prev | ctx | lexicals | volatiles|
+-
On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 09:39:27AM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> Bill Coffman wrote:
> >Another interesting thing about this problem is that these new CFG
> >edges are rarely, or at least with low probability, ever travelled.
>
> We just don't know it, rare or not doesn't matter.
I'm probably
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Sure. But I've no confirmation of a compiler writer that its possible.
Annotating PIR can only work for nested closures. If libraries are
involved you are out of luck.
And we have such code already in library/Streams/Sub.imc.
I've been thinking of what could be implemented
Bill Coffman wrote:
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 23:26:39 +0100, Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Keep in mind that you don't actually have to add all those CFG edges.
You already know precisely the effects of adding them. All
non-volatile symbols (those crossing subs that might make continuati
Matt Fowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Leo~
> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 04:55:24 +0100, Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I've clearly stated that lexicals aka non-volatiles have distinct
>> registers.
> Thus for these large subs, won't this be a large overhead?
Why? It's actually less
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 04:55:24 +0100, Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matt Fowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ... However, if a continuation restores registers to the data they
> > had when the continuation was taken, then all of the registers will
> > contain the things that exactly
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 23:26:39 +0100, Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matt Fowles wrote:
>
> > Have we seen that this actually destroys us? Meaning, if we add the
> > extra CFG arcs, do we start spilling like mad? If not, this is much
> > ado about nothing.
>
> Please first have a lo
Leo~
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 04:55:24 +0100, Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matt Fowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Won't your approach put every one of those things in its own register?
>
> I've clearly stated that lexicals aka non-volatiles have distinct
> registers.
Thus for t
Matt Fowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Won't your approach put every one of those things in its own register?
I've clearly stated that lexicals aka non-volatiles have distinct
registers.
> ... However, if a continuation restores registers to the data they
> had when the continuation was taken
Leo~
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 23:26:39 +0100, Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matt Fowles wrote:
>
> > Have we seen that this actually destroys us? Meaning, if we add the
> > extra CFG arcs, do we start spilling like mad? If not, this is much
> > ado about nothing.
>
> Please first hav
Matt Fowles wrote:
Have we seen that this actually destroys us? Meaning, if we add the
extra CFG arcs, do we start spilling like mad? If not, this is much
ado about nothing.
Please first have a look at Dan's recent posting about Evil Sub. Then
estimate, how many subs may be called in 14000 basic
Leo~
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 21:15:33 +0100, Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Below inline/attached are some thoughts WRT the subject.
>
> leo
>
>
> Lexicals, continuations, and register allocation
>
> 1) Recent discussions have shown that we obvious
Below inline/attached are some thoughts WRT the subject.
leo
Lexicals, continuations, and register allocation
1) Recent discussions have shown that we obviously can't handle all
the side effects of continuations correctly. Reusing preserved
(non-volatile) registers after a call isn't po
32 matches
Mail list logo
