Dan gave a list a bit ago about some minimal assumptions about how we'll deal
with memory. I've been researching various memory management techniques, and
I'm noticing that various optimizations can occur if certain assumptions are
made.. It's still early in the game, but I thought it might be
Documentation updated, and tests added to t/op/string.t.
The CVS log details most of the changes, but basically:
core.ops - Added ord() opcode
string.c - Added string_ord() and a _string_index() helper function to
help making accommodating different encodings easier. Patched concat()
to deal with
On Mon, Nov 12, 2001 at 02:20:33PM -0800, Robert Spier wrote:
> I think some things may just need to be kicked.
I've kicked *some* things, and I accuse Mr. Goff of now being
able to count up to 8. :) Should be all fine now.
--
FAILURE:
When Your Best Just Isn't Good Enough
I note, however, that it is not consumed.
--
Everything that can ever be invented has been invented
- Charles H. Duell, Commisioner of U.S. Patents, 1899.
The tinderbox is showing some unhappyness:
http://tinderbox.perl.org/tinderbox/showbuilds.cgi?tree=parrot
I think some things may just need to be kicked.
-R
On Friday 09 November 2001 03:36 pm, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > Do we want non-PMC lexical support?
>
> Nope, I wasn't going to bother. All variables are PMCs. The int/string/num
> things are for internal speed hacks.
But can't a compiler generate one of these "internal hacks"? My thoughts are
Michael L Maraist wrote:
> No barriers for us?
Generational collectors require a write barrier because
old objects must never point to younger ones. ('Course Dan
said he's starting with a simple copying collector, so we
don't need a barrier. Hmm. I guess Dan's not *reject*ing
a barrier, just reje
Jason Gloudon
# On Sun, Nov 11, 2001 at 08:57:15PM -0800, Brent Dax wrote:
#
# > You get the idea? And as for multidimensional stuff,
# what's wrong with:
# >
# > fetchlex P1, "@lol"
# > fetchary P2, P1, 1
# > fetchary P3, P2, 2
# > #...
#
# Consider (from exegesis 2):
#
# my int
On Mon, Nov 12, 2001 at 12:05:04PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Will. Docs, darn it! Must have docs! Tests, too, but if you have docs you
> can rope someone into writing the tests and the lot of 'ya can submit a
> chunk of patches. :)
And if you have docs and tests, you might be able to convinc
At 03:35 AM 11/11/2001 -0500, James Mastros wrote:
>On Sun, 11 Nov 2001, Alex Gough wrote:
> > On Sun, 11 Nov 2001, Alex Gough wrote:
> > > ook, cool, but string_length returns an INTVAL, not an int.
> > Remember that people who say "negative" usually mean "positive", they
> > just don't know it y
At 08:01 PM 11/11/2001 -0500, Jeff wrote:
>The subject says it all...
In, thanks.
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ha
At 09:50 PM 11/10/2001 -0500, Jeff wrote:
>The following patch fixes the following bugs with macros:
Applied, with the updated macro.t. Thanks.
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski
In perl.perl6.internals, you wrote:
>At 11:24 PM 11/11/2001 +, Alex Gough wrote:
>>Can someone on windows see if this helps?
>
>Close--the read from the run script needs something like it too. With it,
>though, CygWin tests just fine. Woohoo!
I didn't read the original report, but anytime yo
On Mon, Nov 12, 2001 at 11:39:34AM -0500, Ken Fox wrote:
> It's also something that can be bolted on later, so there's
> no reason to reject it now.
I'm not *reject*ing it now. I'm rejecting it *now*. :)
--
The trouble with computers is that they do what you tell them, not what
you want.
At 11:39 AM 11/12/2001 -0500, Ken Fox wrote:
>Simon Cozens wrote:
> > You save one level of indirection, at a large complexity
> > cost.
>
>A lot less complexity than a JIT though. 100% portable
>code too.
It's got the same sort of issue that a lot of other inlining's got, but...
In those cases
At 03:02 AM 11/11/2001 -0500, James Mastros wrote:
>On Sat, 10 Nov 2001, Leon Brocard wrote:
> > mops.pasm uses a very simple loop to figure out how many operations a
> > second parrot can go. However, the loop it uses is inefficient: it
> > does a "branch" *and* an "eq" every time around.
>
> > m
At 08:38 PM 11/11/2001 -0500, Michael L Maraist wrote:
>I've been very eagerly researching GCing techniques; reading whatever
>white-papers I could get my hands on. (mostly linkable via previous posts,
>or acm.com) I'm by no means finished, but here's what I've discovered so far:
'Kay, two ques
At 11:24 PM 11/11/2001 +, Alex Gough wrote:
>Can someone on windows see if this helps?
Close--the read from the run script needs something like it too. With it,
though, CygWin tests just fine. Woohoo!
Thanks, Alex, and committed.
Dan
---
At 05:41 PM 11/11/2001 -0500, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>So when a variable is first created, all it has is a single bit
>representing it's refcount. When allocated, it's turned on. When it
>falls out of scope it's flipped off and swept away.
>
>When a variable is referenced a second time, it's t
Simon Cozens wrote:
> You save one level of indirection, at a large complexity
> cost.
A lot less complexity than a JIT though. 100% portable
code too.
It's also something that can be bolted on later, so there's
no reason to reject it now. I'm just throwing it out to the
list because I know othe
At 02:44 AM 11/13/2001 +1100, Andrew J Bromage wrote:
>G'day all.
>
>On Mon, Nov 12, 2001 at 03:37:08PM +, Leon Brocard wrote:
>
> > I forgot to point out that details of the JVM are available [...]
>
>I realise that this _is_ a major difference between Parrot and the
>JVM, but you don't need
At 10:47 AM 11/12/2001 -0500, Will Coleda wrote:
>Robert Spier wrote:
> > -R (still against Powerpoint for this, but we're sliding off topic.)
>
>Star Office provides power point support, fwiw.
Star Office's presentation module is... not particularly stellar. I've done
a few presentations with i
Robert Spier wrote:
> -R (still against Powerpoint for this, but we're sliding off topic.)
Star Office provides power point support, fwiw.
G'day all.
On Mon, Nov 12, 2001 at 03:37:08PM +, Leon Brocard wrote:
> I forgot to point out that details of the JVM are available [...]
I realise that this _is_ a major difference between Parrot and the
JVM, but you don't need to rub it in. :-)
Cheers,
Andrew Bromage
>I was wondering about *editing* them. IMHO all the data
>structures in Parrot must be documented as beautifully as
>PerlGuts Illustrated. Parrot is evolving quickly though
>and needs documentation that is easy to update.
Yes. Definitely. I think PerlGuts used GraphViz.
>"dia" is probably a wo
Leon Brocard sent the following bits through the ether:
> o JVM is stack-based, Parrot is register-based (major difference!)
I forgot to point out that details of the JVM are available at:
http://java.sun.com/docs/books/vmspec/2nd-edition/html/VMSpecTOC.doc.html
Leon
--
Leon Brocard.
On Mon, Nov 12, 2001 at 10:15:19AM -0500, Ken Fox wrote:
> Where this fits into Parrot's interpreter is that
> languages could pre-generate ops corresponding to
> dynamically generated inlined caches. All we need is a
> way to replace the simple method call op with the
> inlined one.
You save on
I few days ago I suggested inlining some PMC methods
would be good for performance. It turns out that this
question has been heavily studied by the OO community
for at least 10 years. A common solution is to
dynamically replace a method call with the body of the
method wrapped in an if statement.
On Sun, Nov 11, 2001 at 08:57:15PM -0800, Brent Dax wrote:
> You get the idea? And as for multidimensional stuff, what's wrong with:
>
> fetchlex P1, "@lol"
> fetchary P2, P1, 1
> fetchary P3, P2, 2
> #...
Consider (from exegesis 2):
my int @hit_count is dim(100,366,24
Robert Spier wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 11, 2001 at 07:38:28PM -0500, Ken Fox wrote:
> | ... Powerpoint would be a better choice since everybody
> | has to deal with that format anyway.
>
> Please, no! Powerpoint is one of the few formats which
> cannot be easily read on a non Windows or Mac system.
Alberto Manuel Brandao Simoes sent the following bits through the ether:
> I'm on the work of writting something about virtual machines and I
> would like to know if there is any report on differences between JVM
> and parrot... and if there is any web document about perl5 VM.
Righto, I've been
On Mon, Nov 12, 2001 at 12:35:00PM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
| On Mon, Nov 12, 2001 at 11:39:44AM +, Alberto Manuel Brandao Simoes wrote:
| > I'm on the work of writting something about virtual machines
| > and I would like to know if there is any report on differences
| > between JVM an
On Mon, Nov 12, 2001 at 11:39:44AM +, Alberto Manuel Brandao Simoes wrote:
> I'm on the work of writting something about virtual machines
> and I would like to know if there is any report on differences
> between JVM and parrot...
Sounds like a job for Leon.
> and if there is any web
Hello!
I'm on the work of writting something about virtual machines
and I would like to know if there is any report on differences between JVM and
parrot... and if there is any web document about perl5 VM.
Cheers
Alberto
--
f u cn rd ths, u cn gt a gd jb n cmpt
On Sat, Nov 10, 2001 at 07:30:25PM +, Leon Brocard wrote:
> The attached patch optimises the loop. Note that MOPS numbers now look
> slightly different. For example, on my laptop:
Independently discovered at the BSD conference this weekend; I'm checking
in my version of the change, which is s
--- Original Message ---
From:"H.M. Brand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date:Sun, 11 Nov 2001 22:57:12 +0100 (MET)
Subject: Parrot Smoke Nov 11 20:00:01 2001 UTC hpux 11.00
Automated smoke report for patch Nov 11 20:00:01 2001
36 matches
Mail list logo