At 1:24 PM -0600 4/6/04, Luke Palmer wrote:
Dan Sugalski writes:
I'm OK with moving the return continuation out of P1 and into
somewhere else--I can even see throwing it on the control stack. (Or
a special register, I can live with that as well)
I'd like to express my vote of confidence for an R
Dan Sugalski writes:
> I'm OK with moving the return continuation out of P1 and into
> somewhere else--I can even see throwing it on the control stack. (Or
> a special register, I can live with that as well)
I'd like to express my vote of confidence for an RC register, which is
put in the contex
At 9:12 AM +0100 4/2/04, Piers Cawley wrote:
Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
When you make a full continuation with clone, can't you chase up its
continuation chain and mark its reachable continuations (and only those
continuations) as non r
Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, I ported the following Scheme code to PIR. (The PIR is appended
> to this message...
I've cleaned up the whole freelist handling code now and added your code
as a test, which exposed one more bug: it didn't run with --gc-debug.
That's fixed now too-
Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> When you make a full continuation with clone, can't you chase up its
>> continuation chain and mark its reachable continuations (and only those
>> continuations) as non recyclable? (This is one of the reason
Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 08:00:24PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
>: This OTOH means, that a Continuation created with invokecc shall be
>: never silently reused. There is currently one protection in the code
>: against that: If ever one Continuation is create
Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When you make a full continuation with clone, can't you chase up its
> continuation chain and mark its reachable continuations (and only those
> continuations) as non recyclable? (This is one of the reasons I think
> that a Continuation should have an expl
On Thu, 2004-04-01 at 07:08, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> > $P0 = find_lex("fail")
> > $P0() # Why can't we do this? Does $P0.() work any better?
>
> It used to give tons of reduce conflicts and wrong code ... wait ... try
> again ... now it works ... fixed.
It works for NCI subs too. *Very
Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Piers Cawley wrote:
>
>> Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>>At (1) the continuation is marked with C. In C
>>>this flag is propagated to the stacks in the continuation's context. At
>>>(2) or any other place, where this stacks are poppe
On Thu, 2004-04-01 at 08:07, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> --- parrot/src/objects.c Thu Apr 1 17:11:09 2004
> +++ parrot-leo/src/objects.c Thu Apr 1 17:45:25 2004
> @@ -783,7 +783,7 @@
> /*
>* s. also src/stack_common.c:200
>*/
> -#define DISBALE_RETC_RECYCLING 1
> +#define DISBALE_RE
Piers Cawley wrote:
Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
At (1) the continuation is marked with C. In C
this flag is propagated to the stacks in the continuation's context. At
(2) or any other place, where this stacks are popped off, the stack
chunks are not put onto the stack chunk freeli
Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
Remember how Leo wanted an example of how continuations were used?
>>>
>>> Great example - I don't understand
On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 08:00:24PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
: This OTOH means, that a Continuation created with invokecc shall be
: never silently reused. There is currently one protection in the code
: against that: If ever one Continuation is created explicitely,
: RetContinuation recycli
Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Remember how Leo wanted an example of how continuations were used?
>>
>> Great example - I don't understand how it wotks though :) - but I
>> understand, why the
Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Piers Cawley wrote:
>
>> Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
>>>Here is a proof of concept patchoid:
>>>
>> Fabulous
>>
>>>1) change to your example code:
>>> $P1 = clone P1
>>> store_lex 1, "cc", $P1
>>>(the clone strips off all
Piers Cawley wrote:
Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Here is a proof of concept patchoid:
Fabulous
1) change to your example code:
$P1 = clone P1
store_lex 1, "cc", $P1
(the clone strips off all recycle flags)
Oh nice, much neater than what I was thinking of involving makin
Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Remember how Leo wanted an example of how continuations were used?
>
> Great example - I don't understand how it wotks though :) - but I
> understand, why the PIR code might fail:
Okay, I'll try and explain
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leopold Toetsch) writes:
> Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Remember how Leo wanted an example of how continuations were used?
>
> Great example - I don't understand how it wotks though :) - but I
> understand, why the PIR code might fail:
>
>> .sub _choose
>
> [ ...
Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Remember how Leo wanted an example of how continuations were used?
Great example - I don't understand how it wotks though :) - but I
understand, why the PIR code might fail:
> .sub _choose
[ ... ]
> store_lex 1, "cc", P1
You aren't allowed to do
Remember how Leo wanted an example of how continuations were used?
Well, I ported the following Scheme code to PIR. (The PIR is appended
to this message...
;;; Indicate that the computation has failed, and that the program
;;; should try another path. We rebind this variable as needed.
(de
20 matches
Mail list logo
