Re: [perl #57638] [DEPRECATED] [IMCC] old-style PASM registers

2008-11-14 Thread chromatic
On Friday 14 November 2008 18:13:48 Will Coleda via RT wrote: > Here's a very simple patch: > > Index: imcc.l > = > == > --- imcc.l (revision 32647) > +++ imcc.l (working copy) > @@ -305,7 +305,12 @@ > > > <*>[ISNP]{DIGIT}{

[svn:parrot-pdd] r32652 - in trunk: . compilers/imcc docs/pdds languages/dotnet/build languages/dotnet/src languages/dotnet/t languages/forth runtime/parrot/library t/compilers/imcc/syn t/library t/oo

2008-11-14 Thread coke
Author: coke Date: Fri Nov 14 16:33:41 2008 New Revision: 32652 Modified: trunk/docs/pdds/pdd19_pir.pod Changes in other areas also in this revision: Modified: trunk/DEPRECATED.pod trunk/compilers/imcc/imcc.y trunk/compilers/imcc/imcparser.c trunk/languages/dotnet/build/builtins.pl

[svn:parrot-pdd] r32651 - in trunk: . compilers/imcc docs/pdds

2008-11-14 Thread coke
Author: coke Date: Fri Nov 14 15:38:08 2008 New Revision: 32651 Modified: trunk/docs/pdds/pdd19_pir.pod Changes in other areas also in this revision: Modified: trunk/DEPRECATED.pod trunk/compilers/imcc/imcc.y trunk/compilers/imcc/imcparser.c Log: Resolve RT#57432, remove [DEPRECATED]

Re: MAIN conflict in S06?

2008-11-14 Thread Daniel Ruoso
Sex, 2008-11-14 às 09:14 -0800, Larry Wall escreveu: > That's correct. We could fix it two ways. Either the mainline code > gets a consistent new name, or the outermost scope is redefined to an INIT > if there is a user-defined MAIN. I can argue it both ways. I'd argue that there's an implicit

[svn:parrot-pdd] r32647 - in trunk: . compilers/imcc docs/pdds t/compilers/imcc/syn t/pmc

2008-11-14 Thread coke
Author: coke Date: Fri Nov 14 13:21:29 2008 New Revision: 32647 Modified: trunk/docs/pdds/pdd19_pir.pod Changes in other areas also in this revision: Modified: trunk/DEPRECATED.pod trunk/compilers/imcc/imcc.l trunk/compilers/imcc/imclexer.c trunk/t/compilers/imcc/syn/regressions.t

[Parrot] New comment on Register allocation in a PIR compiler.

2008-11-14 Thread Dave
Dave has left a new comment on your post "Register allocation in a PIR compiler": Hope you don't mind if I mention a couple of points. Presumably these "freed" registers are being spilled to memory, meaning that they are assigned to a stack location. I don't see how that can be a benefit if the vi

Re: [perl #49276] [TODO] Refactor tools/util/smokeserv-server.pl

2008-11-14 Thread Will Coleda
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 2:42 PM, Bernhard Schmalhofer via RT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mo. 16. Jun. 2008, 16:50:13, coke wrote: >> On Wed Jan 16 03:41:56 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> > While the fix to my particular problem is simple enough, it is >> apparent >> > that there's enough bit

Re: MAIN conflict in S06?

2008-11-14 Thread John Macdonald
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 01:50:59PM -0500, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote: > WHat *is* the outermost scope in that case? When is code in that scope > executed? I could see this as being a hack to allow a module to be used > either directly as a main, or "use"d; the former ignoring top level scop

Re: MAIN conflict in S06?

2008-11-14 Thread Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH
On 2008 Nov 14, at 12:14, Larry Wall wrote: On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 07:19:31PM -0600, Patrick R. Michaud wrote: : S06:2362 says: : : You can get the current routine name by calling C<&? ROUTINE.name>. : (The outermost routine at a file-scoped compilation unit is always : named C<&

Re: [perl #60312] [BUG] OpenBSD Smolder test failures

2008-11-14 Thread Andy Dougherty
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008, chromatic wrote: > On Monday 03 November 2008 09:38:11 Andy Dougherty wrote: > > > > 3. 1 of the tests appears to fail depending on how the OS initial- > > > cases 'Inf'. Again, could this be addressed in a hints file? > > > > This too is a long-standing problem: See [perl

Re: MAIN conflict in S06?

2008-11-14 Thread Larry Wall
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 07:19:31PM -0600, Patrick R. Michaud wrote: : S06:2362 says: : : You can get the current routine name by calling C<&?ROUTINE.name>. : (The outermost routine at a file-scoped compilation unit is always : named C<&MAIN> in the file's package.) : : Is this the sam

Re: Are eqv and === junction aware?

2008-11-14 Thread TSa
HaloO Jon Lang wrote: Larry Wall wrote: eqv and === autothread just like any other comparisons. If you really want to compare the contents of two junctions, you have to use the results of some magical .eigenmumble method to return the contents as a non-junction. Possibly stringification will

[perl #60540] Memory leak in parrot (via tcl)

2008-11-14 Thread via RT
# New Ticket Created by Will Coleda # Please include the string: [perl #60540] # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue. # http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=60540 > This tcl code (a snippet from the official tcl test suite) runs out of memory on partcl.

Re: [perl #60528] Rakudo wrongly permits mutation of readonly variables in some cases

2008-11-14 Thread Patrick R. Michaud
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 03:21:45PM -0800, Carl Mäsak wrote: > Rakudo r32629 sometimes dies when assigning a readonly variable to > itself, and sometimes not. > > $ ./perl6 -e 'for -> $foo { $foo = $foo; say $foo }' # dies, good > Cannot assign to readonly variable. > [...] > > $ ./perl6 -e 'for

[perl #60528] Rakudo wrongly permits mutation of readonly variables in some cases

2008-11-14 Thread Carl Mäsak
# New Ticket Created by "Carl Mäsak" # Please include the string: [perl #60528] # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue. # http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=60528 > Rakudo r32629 sometimes dies when assigning a readonly variable to itself, and sometimes

[perl #60530] [PATCH] docs/embed.pod example

2008-11-14 Thread via RT
# New Ticket Created by Brad Bowman # Please include the string: [perl #60530] # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue. # http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=60530 > Hello, I tried the first example in docs/embed.pod but it needed a few tweaks to get run

Re: Collapsing Junction states?

2008-11-14 Thread Mark J. Reed
The cancellation behavior makes no sense to me. I expect ?one(0, 1, 2, 2) to return false. That happens whether or not it collapses the 2's to one 2, but not if it ignores/cancels them. The question is, what should ?one(0, 1, 1) return? I think it's pretty clearly false, which implies that junc