The Perl 6 Summary of the week ending 20031109
Traditionally this paragraph concerns itself with a few words on what
I've been up to before finally settling down to get the summary written.
But despite the fact that it's nearly four o'clock, it's been one of
those days where I seem
hiya,
still working onm this php-compiler;-)
thanx for all the replies on my last issue..
next question: calling conventions.
in the calling_convertion.pod you say that the callee should
do a saveall, restoreall. shouldn't imcc be smart about those
things and save all
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Thies C. Arntzen wrote:
> still working onm this php-compiler;-)
> thanx for all the replies on my last issue..
>
> next question: calling conventions.
> in the calling_convertion.pod you say that the callee should
> do a saveall, restoreall. shouldn't imc
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003, Dave Whipp wrote:
> "Dan Sugalski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> > Right now, the only true difference between a sub call and a return, at
> > least at the assembly level, is that we don't pass back a return
> > continuation when we're returning
>
> If one is coding a co-routine
Piers Cawley wrote:
"newsub" and implicit registers
[...] ops [...] that IMCC needed to
track. Leo has a patch in his tree that deals with the issue.
Sorry, my posting seems to have been misleading. The register tracking
code is in the CVS tree.
Thanks again for your summaries,
leo
