# New Ticket Created by Cal Henderson
# Please include the string: [perl #21276]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=21276
hi,
this patch fixes some formatting issues that cause docs/dev/rx.dev to
Tupshin Harper wrote:
Taking a look at the pxs example (is this the right place to be
looking?), and I'm having problems compiling PQt.C per it's own
instructions.
I don't know, what's up with pxs, but AFAIK this is obsolete and
replaced by the NCI (native call interface).
Attached is
Tupshin Harper:
# If pxs is truly obsolete, please trash it ;-).
I'm not confident enough about PXS to trash it, but I've commented a few
files appropriately.
--Brent Dax [EMAIL PROTECTED]
@roles=map {Parrot $_} qw(embedding regexen Configure)
How do you test this 'God' to prove it is who it
A number of the language examples in parrot seem to not work as well as
they once might have(or should).
The learning curve to get familiar something like parrot is much easier
if things like this just work. So, if anybody cares, here's the list of
issues I ran into in the languages directory:
# New Ticket Created by Jürgen Bömmels
# Please include the string: [perl #21277]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=21277
Hello,
Here is an extension to my first macro support patch (#21033 already
Attached is a pod
- describing the current existing stack calling convention
- proposing a syntax for parrot's NCI calling convention.
Comments ... welcome,
leo
=head1 NAME
IMCC - calling conventions
=head1 VERSION
=over 4
=item 0.1 intital proposal
=back
=head1 OVERVIEW
This document
In case anyone is interested.
On a whim I took the primes.pasm example from the parrot examples page
and converted it to both c and perl5, with _interesting_ results.
Timing all three with a max of 100,000 produced the following results:
c -primes.c(lickety split):
real0m7.710s
user
On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 02:14:39AM -0800, Tupshin Harper wrote:
Befunge-93:
Trivial, but a fresh cvs checkout has a lingering empty Befunge-93
directory.
This is a CVS annoyance. It's a good idea to add:
checkout -P
update -d -P
to your ~/.cvsrc. You won't get empty directories if you use
Jürgen Bömmels (via RT) wrote:
# New Ticket Created by Jürgen Bömmels
# Please include the string: [perl #21277]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=21277
Hello,
Here is an extension to my first macro
Tupshin Harper wrote:
In case anyone is interested.
Always :)
Did you have an optimized parrot compile?
( make progclean ; perl Configure.pl ... --optimize ; make -s)
-Tupshin
Code available if anybody cares.
Yes please.
TIA,
leo
Tupshin Harper wrote:
A number of the language examples in parrot seem to not work as well as
they once might have(or should).
The learning curve to get familiar something like parrot is much easier
if things like this just work. So, if anybody cares, here's the list of
issues I ran into in
At 02:14 AM 2/18/2003 -0800, Tupshin Harper wrote:
A number of the language examples in parrot seem to not work as well as
they once might have(or should).
cola:
doesn't compile
bison -v -y -d -o parser.c cola.y
cola.y:75.7-11: type redeclaration for class_decl
cola.y:84.7-11: type redeclaration
At 05:04 PM 2/17/2003 -0800, Tupshin Harper wrote:
So I'm gonna take a look at the native calling functionality of parrot to
see about access to an XML parser.
Taking a look at the pxs example (is this the right place to be looking?),
and I'm having problems compiling PQt.C per it's own
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 01:53:11PM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Did you have an optimized parrot compile?
( make progclean ; perl Configure.pl ... --optimize ; make -s)
--optimize may be broken. I tried it with a clean parrot source and
The ellipses should
Simon Glover (via RT) wrote:
# New Ticket Created by Simon Glover
# Please include the string: [perl #21288]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=21288
The attached patch changes the initialization of
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Did you have an optimized parrot compile?
( make progclean ; perl Configure.pl ... --optimize ; make -s)
No I hadn't, but I just did, using those exact commands(no additional
options to Configure.pl), and had no perceivable performance change
using any of the parrot
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 04:03:40AM -0800, Tupshin Harper wrote:
FYI...all three used the identical algorithm taken from the primes.pasm
example complete with labels and gotos(makes for very disconcerting perl
code). Startup times and printf times were not
# New Ticket Created by Simon Glover
# Please include the string: [perl #21288]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=21288
The attached patch changes the initialization of various function
pointers in
Tupshin Harper wrote:
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Did you have an optimized parrot compile?
( make progclean ; perl Configure.pl ... --optimize ; make -s)
No I hadn't, but I just did, using those exact commands(no additional
options to Configure.pl), and had no perceivable performance change
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think --optimize alone is busted.
Probably my fault, when introducing this option. I did test only with
--debugging.
leo
On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 10:58:59PM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think --optimize alone is busted.
Probably my fault, when introducing this option. I did test only with
--debugging.
No no no. You're supposed to test with -march=... -fomit-frame-pointer
2) (4, 1, 2) + 7 returns (9). This is C comma behavior, and I always
found it incredibly non-intuitive. I'd really like to get away
from this, even if it means that this expression is a fatal error
Can't add scalar to list.
[...]
Agreed, however, that (2) is icky. My worry has
On Saturday, February 15, 2003, at 08:47 AM, David Storrs wrote:
I can see five possible courses here:
1) We decide that my suggestion is a bad one and do nothing with it.
That's fine; I am not wedded to it, I just thought it was an
interesting idea that I wanted to raise.
2) (4, 1, 2)
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
So, IMO, the only reasonable answer is (3)... that a list in numeric
context returns the length. Thus we have consistency between lists
and arrays:
(1,2,3) + 4 # -- (1,2,3).length + 4 -- 7 (list)
[1,2,3] + 4 # -- [1,2,3].length + 4 -- 7 (array
On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 10:06:29PM -, Smylers wrote:
More practically, the length of a list is never interesting: a list by
definition must be hardcoded into the program so its length is known at
compile time. Indeed it should be known by whoever typed it in!
Err, no. Eg in perl 5:
Hello!
Benchmarks are idiosyncratic and devious and I thank you for starting a
comparison whose results interest me greatly. =]
On Tue, 2003-02-18 at 10:03, Tupshin Harper wrote:
[...]and some are in languages I am less then fluent in
(last touched any flavor of assembly in 1985, and barely
On my system, the perl takes 2.24 second and the python takes 3.76 seconds.
You are correct that the 2 versions I send out earlier are *very*
different. I started from two places, the primes.pasm which I converted
to C and perl versions and a pre-existing primes.py and primes.c that I
converted
27 matches
Mail list logo
