Sean O'Rourke wrote:
> I read that as "expressions are evaluated once", not "PMC's are accessed
> once". So something like
>
> 2 < $i++ < 23
>
> will do the expected -- increment $i once, keeping the result in a PMC
> temporary.
I don't see that. $i++ increments the original PMC.
2 <
# New Ticket Created by Josef Höök
# Please include the string: [perl #15890]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=15890 >
Lets try send this mail again ..
-
In pmc.c i've added a function that calls for init
On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> It seems that UNICOS/mk needs ld to be cc for Configure.pl to work
> (the alignment test fails with "CRAY-T3E not found" in test.ldo):
> Therefore, here is the kind of a patch:
Would this then be a perl5 bug? (Of course since the only purpose of
p
At 06:41 PM 7/30/2002 -0400, John Porter wrote:
>Sean O'Rourke wrote:
> > I read that as "expressions are evaluated once", not "PMC's are accessed
> > once". So something like
> >
> > 2 < $i++ < 23
> >
> > will do the expected -- increment $i once, keeping the result in a PMC
> > temporary.
>
[Pardon the tardiness--digging through old mail]
At 3:39 PM -0400 7/22/02, Melvin Smith wrote:
>At 12:00 PM 7/22/2002 +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
>>On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 11:21:09AM +0100, Graham Barr wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 11:14:15AM +0100, Sam Vilain wrote:
>>> > "Sean O'Rourke"
On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> [Pardon the tardiness--digging through old mail]
> At 3:39 PM -0400 7/22/02, Melvin Smith wrote:
> >At 12:00 PM 7/22/2002 +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> >>On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 11:21:09AM +0100, Graham Barr wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 11:14:1
On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> > It seems that UNICOS/mk needs ld to be cc for Configure.pl to work
> > (the alignment test fails with "CRAY-T3E not found" in test.ldo):
> > Therefore, here is the kind of a patch:
> But what is Parrot doing using $Config{ld} on UNICOS/mk? Why on
Let us think a bit about the implementation of lexical variables.
Assignement
First, let us consider how to compile a variable assignement such
as:
$x = $y
where both $x and $y are lexical variables. At first, one may think
that this can be compiled simply into a register assignme
On Wed, 2002-07-31 at 10:25, Jerome Vouillon wrote:
>
> Let us think a bit about the implementation of lexical variables.
Thanks for spelling this out in such detail.
Here is a variation based on the lexical ops (new_pad, pop_pad,
store_lex, find_lex) committed yesterday. Note that lexical pad
At 8:23 AM -0700 7/31/02, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
>On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
>> [Pardon the tardiness--digging through old mail]
>> At 3:39 PM -0400 7/22/02, Melvin Smith wrote:
>> >At 12:00 PM 7/22/2002 +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
>> >>On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 11:21:09AM +0100,
Sean O'Rourke wrote:
> -- languages/perl6 should work equally well with 5.005_03 and 5.6.1.
s/should/does/
EOT ;-)
> /s
leo
On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 11:40:39AM -0600, Jonathan Sillito wrote:
> new_pad # push this on the lexical stack
> # some constant descriptor should also be passed
> # to the new_pad op which would then know about
> # the lexical variable 'x', and would
On Wed, 2002-07-31 at 13:49, Jerome Vouillon wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 11:40:39AM -0600, Jonathan Sillito wrote:
> > new_pad # push this on the lexical stack
> > # some constant descriptor should also be passed
> > # to the new_pad op which would then know
# New Ticket Created by "Mr. Nobody"
# Please include the string: [perl #15904]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=15904 >
lib/Parrot/Configure/Step.pm has these statements at
lines 74 and 76:
system("$cc $ccf
On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 10:20:51PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2002 at 10:34:00PM -0300, Daniel Grunblatt wrote:
> > On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> >
> > > Here's a very minimal ARM jit framework. It does work (at least as far as
> > > passing all 10 t/op/basic.t
# New Ticket Created by Jürgen Bömmels
# Please include the string: [perl #15907]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=15907 >
Hi,
In the quest for removing warnings, I added an option --ccwarn to
Configure.pl.
On Tuesday, July 30, 2002, at 07:20 PM, Simon Glover (via RT) wrote:
> This code segfaults:
>
> sweepoff
> set I0, 0
>
> LOOP: new P0, .PerlString
> set P0, "ABC"
> save P0
> inc I0
> lt I0, 127, LOOP
>
> end
This is a fairly straightforward fix.
Parr
I'm sure this has been thought out before, but I'll
press on anyway. Assuming parrot shouldn't always
create intermediate files (.pbc), then shouldn't
parrot be able to take an input stream as an argument
instead of a filename? That way, one just has to pipe
the output from assemble.pl to parrot
At 03:18 PM 7/31/2002 -0700, Stephen Rawls wrote:
>I'm sure this has been thought out before, but I'll
>press on anyway. Assuming parrot shouldn't always
>create intermediate files (.pbc), then shouldn't
>parrot be able to take an input stream as an argument
>instead of a filename? That way, one
At 06:25 PM 7/31/2002 +0200, Jerome Vouillon wrote:
>Scratchpads
>
> We need to allocate an area in the heap for each lexical variable.
> Instead of allocating this area one variable at a time, we can
> allocate a single "scratchpad" value for all variables of a block:
> this is more effic
Applied with some modification, thanks.
Mike Lambert
Richard Cameron wrote:
> Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 22:24:55 +0100
> From: Richard Cameron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [perl #15845] [BUG] GC segfault
>
>
> On Tuesday, July 30, 2002, at 07:2
John Porter writes:
>
>Aldo Calpini wrote:
>> this is a little tutorial about submitting patches
>> (should be added to a FAQ, or somewhere where it's handy
>
>I think this deserves its own page somewhere on
>dev.perl.org.
Seems like a good idea. I've added it to the queue. It'll end up on
parr
>On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 08:44:20AM -0700, Stephen Rawls wrote:
>> The last two (well, the only two :) patches I sent
>> were counted as spam. Some of the points were becuase
Sorry about that! I'm trying to be better safe than sorry in
preventing spam from getting to the list.
>> Do the patche
Okay, I finally give. For purposes of liveness tracing and GC, we're
going to unify PMCs and strings/buffers. This means we trace through
strings and buffers if the flags are right, and we need to add a GC
link pointer to strings/buffers. It'll make things a bit larger,
which I don't like, but
24 matches
Mail list logo
