At 10:52 PM +0200 4/16/02, Marco Baringer wrote:
>Steve Fink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On the other hand, I may be overlooking a good reason for adding
>> these. The two reasons I can think of right now are (1) you've done
>> benchmarking and combining these ops demonstrates a significant
G'day all.
On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 10:52:05PM +0200, Marco Baringer wrote:
> regarding (2): vector processors would certainly benefit from having
> loops (espicially the ones over arrays of similar things (a large
> percentage of real world loops)) explicitly labeled as such.
A few of comments:
Steve Fink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Could you describe better the need and usefulness of these ops? My
> immediate reaction is "Why not just code loops ourselves?" I think
> your ops can be implemented in two currently-existing opcodes apiece,
> and I'm guessing that JIT support for the more
[Apologies to Marco if he's getting this twice; this message didn't
seem to go out the first time I sent it.]
On Sun, Apr 14, 2002 at 08:21:51PM +0200, Marco Baringer wrote:
>
> i have written 4 different forms of looping ops with varying degrees
> of usefullness. i think that if these were to a
At 8:21 PM +0200 4/14/02, Marco Baringer wrote:
>i have written 4 different forms of looping ops with varying degrees
>of usefullness. i think that if these were to are accepted the form
>which gets used the most in real code should be renamed 'loop' (of
>course, since most code is/will be machine
ok, please pardon the inconvience but everytime i send mail to
perl6-internals the body of my message disappears...
anyway, here's what i meant to say:
[original email]
i have written a simple emacs mode, providing highlighting,
indentation, and compilation, for dealing with .pasm files, it's
pasm.el
Description: application/emacs-lisp
Index: core.ops
===
RCS file: /cvs/public/parrot/core.ops,v
retrieving revision 1.120
diff -u -r1.120 core.ops
--- core.ops 14 Apr 2002 02:05:46 - 1.120
+++ core.ops 14 Apr 2002 18:11:
