Will Coleda wrote:
To be clear, removing the branch does not mean the ticket is closed.
Noted.
The ticket itself (remove PIC) still needs to be resolved. Andrew
seems to have a plan for this in his reply, however.
I wonder who I'm going to assign the ticket to ... :-)
__
Stability issues for partcl are much improved for 1.6.0 vs. 1.5.0;
All but 2 segfaults reported after 1.5 have been fixed, and those
likely existed already in 1.5.0
http://code.google.com/p/partcl/wiki/SpecTestStatus#segfault
Thanks to everyone who has been fixing segfaults (esp. NotFound++),
pro
Good point. I've ducked the issue by changing the line to "Register based
with Continuation Passing control flow".
Thanks.
Tim.
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 05:33:44PM +0400, Richard Hainsworth wrote:
> Slide 79 shows Parrot as having JIT. But JIT is deprecated and broken.
>
> There is a fast core op
A few other interesting metrics could be for example:
* Work done on the Specification (Synopses):
svn log docs/Perl6/Spec/
* TimToady hacking ;)
svn log src/perl6/
svn log src/perl6/STD.pm
* Work done on the Official Testsuite:
svn log t/spec/
* Work done on the Testsuite:
svn log t/
(It's int
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Reini Urban wrote:
> lightning is still active and I use it on clisp. The developer is
> responsive, however there are no releases, everybody has to use current CVS.
> anonym...@cvs.savannah.gnu.org:/sources/lightning
>
> There are rarely bugs in the lib, so there
On Mon, 2009-09-14 at 18:19 +0200, Reini Urban wrote:
> My 5 cent on the other discussion points:
> It's ridicolous to rip out our current jit, just because not all *ops*
> are yet jitted, and some are buggy.
It's getting ripped out because it's broken, no one currently interested
in Parrot knows
Andy Dougherty schrieb:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2009, Andy Dougherty wrote:
Here are a few random observations:
Gnu Lightning: According to the documentation:
"The low number of available registers (six) is also an important
limitation . . . ."
Does anyone have a sense how well that w
Tim (>):
> I'd be grateful for feedback on any of the slides, but I'm especially
> interested in updates for:
>
> page 73 - Perl 6 implementations
> I've added Mildew, with links, to the SMOP line
> anything I should add / change / remove?
> What's th
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 7:10 AM, James E Keenan wrote:
> There has been no activity in the 'remove_pic' branch for nine months. In
> January of this year, Whiteknight asked about its status in
> http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=60048 and got no substantive
> reply.
It does get tiring
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 7:36 AM, Vasily Chekalkin wrote:
> I vote for removing this branch. We can create similar branch after removing
> current JIT.
I agree. Close this branch down for now, we can rip PIC out in a few
days when we rip JIT out too.
--Andrew Whitwoth
I'm working on an update to my "Perl - Baseless Myths and Startling
Realities" talk. (Which I'll be giving in Dublin, Moscow and Pisa in the
few weeks!)
I got great help on the Perl 5 portion of the talk when I asked via my blog
http://blog.timbunce.org/2009/08/13/help-me-update-my-perl-myths-talk
James E Keenan wrote:
There has been no activity in the 'remove_pic' branch for nine months.
In January of this year, Whiteknight asked about its status in
http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=60048 and got no
substantive reply.
Today bacek notes in https://trac.parrot.org/parrot/tic
There has been no activity in the 'remove_pic' branch for nine months.
In January of this year, Whiteknight asked about its status in
http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=60048 and got no
substantive reply.
Today bacek notes in https://trac.parrot.org/parrot/ticket/7 that the
resolut
13 matches
Mail list logo
