Andrew Whitworth wrote:
I've fixed several problems in this branch (with help from plobsing++
and others). I would like to get as much help testing and exercising
this branch as possible. Problematic architectures (I'm looking at
your low-mem box for this, kid51!) and various HLLs. I would like t
Andrew Whitworth wrote:
Problematic architectures (I'm looking at
your low-mem box for this, kid51!) and various HLLs.
See below.
This branch should not bring any appreciable changes in performance or
memory usage. If you see something that looks like a huge slowdown or
a significant jump in
On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 8:27 PM, Andrew Whitworth wrote:
> I'm not seeing that failure on my machine. Can you send me a copy of
> the failure report?
>
> --Andrew Whitworth
>
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 6:29 PM, Peter Lobsinger wrote:
>> I'm still seeing errors on t/examples/pod.t.
>>
>> On Sat,
I'm not seeing that failure on my machine. Can you send me a copy of
the failure report?
--Andrew Whitworth
On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 6:29 PM, Peter Lobsinger wrote:
> I'm still seeing errors on t/examples/pod.t.
>
> On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Andrew Whitworth
> wrote:
>> I've fixed severa
I'm still seeing errors on t/examples/pod.t.
On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Andrew Whitworth wrote:
> I've fixed several problems in this branch (with help from plobsing++
> and others). I would like to get as much help testing and exercising
> this branch as possible. Problematic architectures
I've fixed several problems in this branch (with help from plobsing++
and others). I would like to get as much help testing and exercising
this branch as possible. Problematic architectures (I'm looking at
your low-mem box for this, kid51!) and various HLLs. I would like to
try to get this merged i
, 28 Feb 2011, Andy Dougherty wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2011, Andy Dougherty wrote:
>>
>> > On Sat, 26 Feb 2011, Andrew Whitworth wrote:
>> >
>> > > The whiteknight/imcc_compreg_pmc branch is passing most tests for me
>> > > right now, an
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2011, Andy Dougherty wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 26 Feb 2011, Andrew Whitworth wrote:
> >
> > > The whiteknight/imcc_compreg_pmc branch is passing most tests for me
> > > right now, and I would like to g
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Feb 2011, Andrew Whitworth wrote:
>
> > The whiteknight/imcc_compreg_pmc branch is passing most tests for me
> > right now, and I would like to get some other people to help testing
> > it before I think about a m
On Sat, 26 Feb 2011, Andrew Whitworth wrote:
> The whiteknight/imcc_compreg_pmc branch is passing most tests for me
> right now, and I would like to get some other people to help testing
> it before I think about a merge.
On plain Linux i386 with gcc (no optimize) it built, but
Andrew Whitworth wrote:
The whiteknight/imcc_compreg_pmc branch is passing most tests for me
right now, and I would like to get some other people to help testing
it before I think about a merge.
$ prove -v t/compilers/opsc/02-parse-all-ops.t t/compilers/opsc/07-emitter.t
t/compilers/opsc/02
The whiteknight/imcc_compreg_pmc branch is passing most tests for me
right now, and I would like to get some other people to help testing
it before I think about a merge. First, here is a list of the major
things which have changed in this branch:
1) All internal IMCC functions take a imc_info_t
Andrew Whitworth wrote:
there is a
lot of debugging work to do still. The build does not complete and the
test suite does not run. I am looking for volunteers to help out with
the debugging effort.
Volunteers ... good.
But if we've recruited a *team* to work on the IMCC goal, shouldn't we
tur
The whiteknight/imcc_compreg_pmc branch is the most recent in a series
of branches to clean up IMCC. Between the various branches I've made
on the topic, a significant number of things have changed with respect
to IMCC:
1) The IMCC interface functions have been cleaned and completely
un
14 matches
Mail list logo
