Leopold Toetsch wrote:
[...]
Just if you had 32 N regs used before. It's using only one additional
register.
[...]
I did not touch any PMC ops.
You are of course right, maybe I hadn't had enough coffee this morning.
Sorry for the bother, and keep up the good work.
tom (who is going back into
Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 10:34 AM +0100 11/27/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
See also subject Too many opcodes.
[...]
Could you undo this please? Now is not the time to be trimming ops out.
OTOH, it won't hurt anyone and it is already in.
So why bother, unless of course there is a technical reason...
just that string.
All the other logic needed to import stuff should be left to a module
for that given language. It knows better wich types have to be converted
which functions need wrappers, etc ...
just had to give my 2 cents on namespaces :)
Thomas Seiler
to use these in macros aswell?
Thomas Seiler
Gregory Keeney wrote:
Thomas Seiler wrote:
Couldn't we split the probing into two phases ?
The problem is that getting stuff on and off your target host is not
always trivial. [...]
It is especially not true in the embedded world. Until I have parrot IO
libraries, I am not going to be getting
that directory to the target
- Run the configuration phase and get the Config file
The challange would be to get the miniparrot running on the target.
All the rest should be covered by the normal Parrot Configuration Probing.
This is about as general as it can get, or am I missing something ?
Thomas
, where the header is somehow
predefined and its not possible to add some shebang magic or a use-
clause to indicate some special treatement...
Would such a feature be useful at all ?
Thomas Seiler
