Jason Gloudon wrote:
On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 08:21:42PM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
# #!/usr/bin/perl -w
# my $i= 5;
# LAB:
#$i++;
#eval(goto LAB if ($i==6));
Ok. Having inter_cs call DO_OP just seems more involved than it has to be.
Yep.
How about a single self-contained
On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 12:08:29AM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Here is a proposal for inter code segment jumps:
The assembler (imcc) can recognize when a branch ins goes to a different
code segment.
For such a branch, imcc generates this opcode seqence:
inter_cs
if i, ic # or
Jason Gloudon wrote:
On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 12:08:29AM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Here is a proposal for inter code segment jumps:
The assembler (imcc) can recognize when a branch ins goes to a different
code segment.
For such a branch, imcc generates this opcode seqence:
inter_cs
On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 08:21:42PM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
For such a branch, imcc generates this opcode seqence:
inter_cs
if i, ic # or whatever
Why do we need branches to go to different code segments ?
Because of this nasty piece of little code:
t/syn/eval_3.imc:
#
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
I have it ready.
It's based on the packfile patch #18056 by Juergen Boemmels. On top of
this patch, it was quite easy to implement multiple code segments.
And yet another f'up me.
Here is a proposal for inter code segment jumps:
The assembler (imcc) can recognize when
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
I have it ready.
- code is ready for debug information, I'll first do it in imcc, which
could generate file/line info on the fly. Next would then be to extend
the PBC format.
And this is working too in imcc, including gdb-stepping into evaled code
segments.
Does
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
So it seems, that for multiple code segments, we'll have to take the
PackFile_ConstTable out of the structure and include
file/line/debug/whatever information. This would look like:
packfile aka interpreter-code:
- constants
- code_segment[]
- byte_code
-
Leopold Toetsch (via RT) wrote:
# New Ticket Created by Leopold Toetsch
# Please include the string: [perl #20315]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=20315
Attached is a first try towards eval.
I have
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
1)
The call function to the compiler/assembler is kept as a NCI. Better
would be a subclass of NCI (Compiler.pmc or so), which provides
invoke_keyed(key, next)
Hmm, I don't know what a NCI is. Where (which files) can I find
information about them?
Jerome
--
[EMAIL
At 8:27 PM + 1/14/03, Leopold Toetsch (via RT) wrote:
# New Ticket Created by Leopold Toetsch
# Please include the string: [perl #20315]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=20315
Attached is a first try
In perl.perl6.internals, you wrote:
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
1)
The call function to the compiler/assembler is kept as a NCI. Better
would be a subclass of NCI (Compiler.pmc or so), which provides
invoke_keyed(key, next)
Hmm, I don't know what a NCI is. Where (which files) can I find
Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 8:27 PM + 1/14/03, Leopold Toetsch (via RT) wrote:
Yow, Cool! We *have* to get IMCC built into parrot now.
You do get this wrong - always ;-)
imcc = parrot + assemble.pl - pre-processor + PIR-assembler +
optimizer/10#yet now already
With the help
# New Ticket Created by Leopold Toetsch
# Please include the string: [perl #20315]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=20315
Attached is a first try towards eval.
- interpreter has a new data member
13 matches
Mail list logo
