[perl #42155] [PATCH] move members from Parrot_Interp to Parrot_Context

2008-03-19 Thread James Keenan via RT
No one spoke up, and no patch was resubmitted. So I am resolving the ticket. kid51

[perl #42155] [PATCH] move members from Parrot_Interp to Parrot_Context

2008-03-16 Thread James Keenan via RT
There's been no activity in this thread for 10+ months. In the last posting on Apr 24 2007, mdiep wrote: I was taking a look at this patch and tried to apply it, but it no longer applies cleanly. If you re-submit so that it applies cleanly, I'll check in if I can get all tests to pass.

Re: [perl #42155] [PATCH] move members from Parrot_Interp to Parrot_Context

2007-03-30 Thread Alek Storm
I used a simple benchmark to compare the relative speeds of Parrot with and without the patch, and I was surprised to find that the test script runs (very roughly) 10% faster *with* the patch. Can someone confirm this? Running revision 17860; benchmark script attached; run as: $ parrot

Re: [perl #42155] [PATCH] move members from Parrot_Interp to Parrot_Context

2007-03-30 Thread chromatic
On Friday 30 March 2007 13:59, Alek Storm wrote: I used a simple benchmark to compare the relative speeds of Parrot with and without the patch, and I was surprised to find that the test script runs (very roughly) 10% faster *with* the patch. Can someone confirm this? Running revision 17860;

Re: [perl #42155] [PATCH] move members from Parrot_Interp to Parrot_Context

2007-03-29 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Am Donnerstag, 29. März 2007 00:00 schrieb Alek Storm: On 3/28/07, Leopold Toetsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1) This ism't needed, these pointers are only valid and needed up to the next sub call/return. The current_results member already lives in Parrot_Context; this patch just moves the

Re: [perl #42155] [PATCH] move members from Parrot_Interp to Parrot_Context

2007-03-29 Thread chromatic
On Thursday 29 March 2007 13:27, Leopold Toetsch wrote: Compactness does not supersede good design. Basically in theorie yes, but don't always forget performance. Until we get completeness and correctness and cleanliness, I really think we should forget performance. It's awfully difficult

Re: [perl #42155] [PATCH] move members from Parrot_Interp to Parrot_Context

2007-03-29 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Am Donnerstag, 29. März 2007 23:01 schrieb chromatic: On Thursday 29 March 2007 13:27, Leopold Toetsch wrote: Compactness does not supersede good design. Basically in theorie yes, but don't always forget performance. Until we get completeness and correctness and cleanliness, I really

[perl #42155] [PATCH] move members from Parrot_Interp to Parrot_Context

2007-03-28 Thread Alek Storm
# New Ticket Created by Alek Storm # Please include the string: [perl #42155] # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue. # URL: http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=42155 This patch moves args_signature, params_signature, returns_signature, current_args,

Re: [perl #42155] [PATCH] move members from Parrot_Interp to Parrot_Context

2007-03-28 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Am Mittwoch, 28. März 2007 03:14 schrieb Alek Storm: This patch moves args_signature, params_signature, returns_signature, current_args, current_params, and current_returns from Parrot_Interp to Parrot_Context.  This makes the interpreter more reentrant, which is always a good thing. Nope.

Re: [perl #42155] [PATCH] move members from Parrot_Interp to Parrot_Context

2007-03-28 Thread Alek Storm
On 3/28/07, Leopold Toetsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1) This ism't needed, these pointers are only valid and needed up to the next sub call/return. The current_results member already lives in Parrot_Context; this patch just moves the rest of them there as well. Variables can't be global