On 07/01/2011 15:45, Andrew Whitworth wrote:
I'm really coming to the conclusion that the problem with fill_params
isn't just that it's too large and ugly, but that it's tasked with too
much stuff. Our PCC algorithm, and the promises that we make about all
the different types and configurations o
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 9:45 AM, Andrew Whitworth wrote:
> 1a) For that matter, we could replace get_params with a handful of new
> ops: get_pmc, get_pmc_slurpy, get_x_named, get_x_optional, etc. Each
> one would make a single transaction with the signature object. In this
> case, fill_params evapo
On 07/01/2011 17:01, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 09:35:02AM -0600, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 04:15:14PM +0100, Nick Wellnhofer wrote:
I completely agree with your analysis. There's another approach:
(4) We don't build the signature object at all, b
On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 09:35:02AM -0600, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 04:15:14PM +0100, Nick Wellnhofer wrote:
> > I completely agree with your analysis. There's another approach:
> >
> > (4) We don't build the signature object at all, but we transfer the
> > arguments dire
On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 04:15:14PM +0100, Nick Wellnhofer wrote:
> I completely agree with your analysis. There's another approach:
>
> (4) We don't build the signature object at all, but we transfer the
> arguments directly from the "raw" signatures and the registers of
> the caller to the regist
I completely agree with your analysis. There's another approach:
(4) We don't build the signature object at all, but we transfer the
arguments directly from the "raw" signatures and the registers of the
caller to the registers of the callee. So we'd have a single function
that does the work of
I pulled that work into a branch, and I think we should definitely
treat it with serious suspicion. In addition to making major changes
to the form of the code, it very possibly has a performance impact
which we need to benchmark. I think we consider this branch to be
extremely experimental and exp
Hello.
I tend to agree with Nick.
--
Bacek
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 11:04 PM, Nick Wellnhofer wrote:
>
> I've already mentioned on IRC that I'm skeptical about the GCI task to
> remove 100 lines from the fill_params function. The task has now been
> completed and the result looks like this:
>
>
I've already mentioned on IRC that I'm skeptical about the GCI task to
remove 100 lines from the fill_params function. The task has now been
completed and the result looks like this:
https://github.com/rofflwaffls/parrot/commit/18d905aec2c0c352c42dd98b7dcf1a0640270929
Now we have 270 lines a
