Hello.
I sent to the list the message to parrotbug, and later to parrotbug
the apology message to the list, sorry.
--
Salu2
Sorry, I forgot to attach necessary legal bits to the last two patches I
applied:
new n_arithmetics tests
Courtesy of Bob Rogers
[Patch] Win32 thread primitives
Courtesy of Vladimir Lipsky
leo
At 3:29 PM +0100 12/7/03, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I got mugged by the flu, [ ... ]
[ ... ] Objects'll be the death of me, I swear...
I don't hope, that this is anyhow related to my checkins,
Nah--objects just hate me. :)
--
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I got mugged by the flu, [ ... ]
> [ ... ] Objects'll be the death of me, I swear...
I don't hope, that this is anyhow related to my checkins, 'cause: "...
IS PROVIDED "AS IS" ... IN NO EVENT ... BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES,
INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL
I got mugged by the flu, or something quite like it, on wednesday,
and I'm still trying to stay up and running for more than a few hours
at a stretch. (And digging out from the rubble of two kids who
*aren't* sick :) Objects'll be the death of me, I swear... Anyway, I
see there's more than one
I've started a new job this week, and between finishing the last one and
getting this going it's changed my schedule rather a lot. Settling down,
though, so I should be in a position to at least trickle out mail again.
I'll be draining out the queue tonight and tomorrow morning (GMT-500 if
you're
I'm digging out from under near two-weeks of p6i mail, and taking it
from back to front. If there are pending issues I've not gotten to in
the next few days (as it's a lunch and evening project) then pop them
back to the list and we'll get them addressed.
--
> I stated #4 wrong...it should be perlnum.pmc not >perlint.pmc
[snip exceedingly long unnecessary repost...]
It's late...I didn't mean to take up your bandwidth :(
sorry about that.
#! perl
use Parrot::Test tests => 5;
use Test::More;
output_is(<<'CODE', <
I'm writing a simple language to embody the concept of copy-on-write, and
so that I can learn how to implement it. The language is called COW and
it's at
http://japhy.perlmonk.org/COW/
Ben Tilly suggested I contact the Perl6 Internals folk and let you know
that this is an important feature th
At 10:28 AM 10/26/2001 -0500, Brian Wheeler wrote:
>On Fri, 2001-10-26 at 09:57, Sam Tregar wrote:
> > On Fri, 26 Oct 2001, Brent Dax wrote:
> >
> > > What if I want my compiler to be lazy? Do you have the right to punish
> > > me for my laziness by making me add constant folding to my optimizer
At 08:32 AM 10/26/2001 -0700, Brent Dax wrote:
>Dan Sugalski:
># More importantly, the answer to the preceeding question can be "Yes".
>
>So why don't we wait until we decide we don't have enough opcodes?
>Smells like premature optimization to me.
Note the answer was "can be", not "will be"...
Brian Wheeler:
# I've got a dumb question, and its probably because I've not
# been paying
# attention, so I apologise in advance.
#
# How does a program access more than 32 variables simultaneously? In
# real CPU architectures you've got main memory storage, but
# here we only
# have registers.
Dan Sugalski:
# At 10:51 AM 10/26/2001 -0400, Jason Gloudon wrote:
# >On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 06:54:32AM -0700, Brent Dax wrote:
# >
# > > What if I want my compiler to be lazy? Do you have the
# right to punish
# > > me for my laziness by making me add constant folding to
# my optimizer (or
# >
Sam Tregar:
# On Fri, 26 Oct 2001, Brent Dax wrote:
#
# > What if I want my compiler to be lazy? Do you have the
# right to punish
# > me for my laziness by making me add constant folding to my
# optimizer (or
# > perhaps making me *write* an optimizer just to do constant folding)?
#
# Actually,
On Fri, 2001-10-26 at 09:57, Sam Tregar wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2001, Brent Dax wrote:
>
> > What if I want my compiler to be lazy? Do you have the right to punish
> > me for my laziness by making me add constant folding to my optimizer (or
> > perhaps making me *write* an optimizer just to do c
On Fri, 26 Oct 2001, Brent Dax wrote:
> What if I want my compiler to be lazy? Do you have the right to punish
> me for my laziness by making me add constant folding to my optimizer (or
> perhaps making me *write* an optimizer just to do constant folding)?
Actually, a really lazy compiler will
On Fri, 2001-10-26 at 01:32, Tom Hughes wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Brian Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Darn it, I fat fingered the log message.
> >
> > This is a fix which changes the way op variants are handled. The old
> > method "forgot" the last variant,
At 10:51 AM 10/26/2001 -0400, Jason Gloudon wrote:
>On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 06:54:32AM -0700, Brent Dax wrote:
>
> > What if I want my compiler to be lazy? Do you have the right to punish
> > me for my laziness by making me add constant folding to my optimizer (or
> > perhaps making me *write* an
On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 06:54:32AM -0700, Brent Dax wrote:
> What if I want my compiler to be lazy? Do you have the right to punish
> me for my laziness by making me add constant folding to my optimizer (or
> perhaps making me *write* an optimizer just to do constant folding)?
You don't have to
Tom Hughes:
# In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
# Brian Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
#
# > Darn it, I fat fingered the log message.
# >
# > This is a fix which changes the way op variants are
# handled. The old
# > method "forgot" the last variant, so thing(i,i|ic,i|ic) would
# > gen
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Brian Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Darn it, I fat fingered the log message.
>
> This is a fix which changes the way op variants are handled. The old
> method "forgot" the last variant, so thing(i,i|ic,i|ic) would
> generate:
> thing(i,i,i)
> thin
Darn it, I fat fingered the log message.
This is a fix which changes the way op variants are handled. The old
method "forgot" the last variant, so thing(i,i|ic,i|ic) would
generate:
thing(i,i,i)
thing(i,i,ic)
thing(i,ic,i)
but not
thing(i,ic,ic)
The new one does.
Brian
23 matches
Mail list logo
