Okay, I'm whipping together the fancy math section of the interpreter
assembley language. I've got:
...
Can anyone think of things I've forgotten? It's been a while since I've
done numeric work.
HP calculators sometimes define
lnp1(x) = ln(1 + x)
expm1(x) = exp(x) - 1
to deal accurately
On Mon, 10 Sep 2001 18:48:01 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 12:35 AM 9/11/2001 +0200, Bart Lateur wrote:
On Mon, 10 Sep 2001 17:13:44 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Who the heck is going to override arctangent? (No, don't tell me, I don't
want to know)
Perhaps you do. Think BigFloat. Or Complex.
At 08:07 PM 9/9/2001 -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
DS == Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DS Yeah, I can't think of a good reason for a noop. We might have one
DS anyway, though, just in case one comes along anyway.
in a hardware cpu they were commonly used to fill an instruction slot
Uri Guttman wrote:
but having parrot op codes map to special instructions
makes sense only if we are doing some form of machine instruction
generation as with JIT or TIL.
Actually, I wasn't necessarily asking for any special ops (I'm not actually
asking for anything, it's just a suggestion),
DW == David Whipp [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DW Dan Sugalski wrote:
Okay, I'm whipping together the fancy math section of the
interpreter assembly language. I've got:
DW [...]
Can anyone think of things I've forgotten? It's been a while
since I've done numeric work.
DW I'm
At 10:58 AM 9/10/2001 -0700, David Whipp wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Okay, I'm whipping together the fancy math section of the
interpreter assembly language. I've got:
[...]
Can anyone think of things I've forgotten? It's been a while
since I've done numeric work.
I'm not sure where this
Uri Guttman
we are planning automatic over/underflow to bigfloat. so there is no
need for traps. they could be provided at the time of the
conversion to big*.
OK. But will Perl support signaling and non-signaling NANs?
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Okay, I'm whipping together the fancy math section of the interpreter
assembly language. I've got:
[...]
Can anyone think of things I've forgotten? It's been a while since I've
done numeric work.
I'm not a math weenie, but I would thing gamma(x) would be of use.
Also
At 02:12 PM 9/10/2001 -0700, Hong Zhang wrote:
Uri Guttman
we are planning automatic over/underflow to bigfloat. so there is no
need for traps. they could be provided at the time of the
conversion to big*.
OK. But will Perl support signaling and non-signaling NANs?
I don't think
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Okay, I'm whipping together the fancy math section of the
interpreter assembly language. I've got:
[...]
Can anyone think of things I've forgotten? It's been a while
since I've done numeric work.
I'm not sure where this belongs, but I'd really like to have
a usage model
W == Wizard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
W Uri Guttman wrote:
but having parrot op codes map to special instructions
makes sense only if we are doing some form of machine instruction
generation as with JIT or TIL.
W Actually, I wasn't necessarily asking for any special ops (I'm not
Well, I used to do some embedded systems programming using C, and many of
the compilers would make attempts to optimize logical ops like
if( byte_variable 0xF7 ){...
into something using a processor op equivalent to the 8051C
testbit( byte_variable, bit_offset).
The 8051 processor has
On Monday 10 September 2001 10:28 am, Brian Wheeler wrote:
I was thinking about NOP this morning, and I realized that it might very
well be necessary. If someone was writing a simple assembler for
parrot, it might be useful for padding.
Pad what?
--
Bryan C. Warnock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 06:26 PM 9/9/2001 -0700, Wizard wrote:
into something using a processor op equivalent to the 8051C
testbit( byte_variable, bit_offset).
This is pretty much
testbit I0, 6
to test whether bit 6 is set i I0, right?
What is the difference from
and I0, I0, (1 6)
Unless if
At 10:55 AM 9/10/2001 -0700, Hong Zhang wrote:
At 06:26 PM 9/9/2001 -0700, Wizard wrote:
into something using a processor op equivalent to the 8051C
testbit( byte_variable, bit_offset).
This is pretty much
testbit I0, 6
to test whether bit 6 is set i I0, right?
What is
On Mon, 2001-09-10 at 09:16, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
On Monday 10 September 2001 10:28 am, Brian Wheeler wrote:
I was thinking about NOP this morning, and I realized that it might very
well be necessary. If someone was writing a simple assembler for
parrot, it might be useful for
On Sat, Sep 08, 2001 at 12:00:24PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Okay, I'm whipping together the fancy math section of the interpreter
assembly language. I've got:
sin, cos, tan : Plain ones
asin, acos, atan : arc-whatevers
shinh, cosh, tanh : Hyperbolic whatevers
log2,
At 09:15 PM 9/10/2001 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
FWIW, it's just dawned on me that if we want all of these things to be
overloadable by PMCs, they need to have vtable entries. The PMC vtable
is going to be considerably bigger than we anticipated.
Who the heck is going to override arctangent?
On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, Simon Cozens wrote:
On Sat, Sep 08, 2001 at 12:00:24PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Okay, I'm whipping together the fancy math section of the interpreter
assembly language. I've got:
sin, cos, tan : Plain ones
asin, acos, atan: arc-whatevers
At 10:08 AM 9/10/2001 -0700, Wizard wrote:
Uri Guttman wrote:
but having parrot op codes map to special instructions
makes sense only if we are doing some form of machine instruction
generation as with JIT or TIL.
Actually, I wasn't necessarily asking for any special ops (I'm not actually
On Mon, 2001-09-10 at 08:47, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 08:07 PM 9/9/2001 -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
DS == Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DS Yeah, I can't think of a good reason for a noop. We might have one
DS anyway, though, just in case one comes along anyway.
in a hardware
Dan Sugalski:
# At 10:08 AM 9/10/2001 -0700, Wizard wrote:
# Uri Guttman wrote:
...
# Okay, I see what you're aiming at. I don't think we will,
# mainly because
# it's not going to do us a whole lot of good. Parrot's got
# more registers
# than any system on the planet that I know of, so the bit
Uri Guttman wrote:
BS == Benjamin Stuhl [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Can anyone think of things I've forgotten? It's been a while since
I've done numeric work.
BS ln, asinh, acosh, atanh2?
dan mentioned log (base anything) but i don't recall ln. and definitely
the arc hyberbolics
On Sun, Sep 09, 2001 at 02:33:17PM +1000, Jeremy Howard wrote:
Uri Guttman wrote:
BS == Benjamin Stuhl [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Can anyone think of things I've forgotten? It's been a while since
I've done numeric work.
BS ln, asinh, acosh, atanh2?
dan mentioned log
At 09:51 PM 9/8/2001 -0700, Dave Storrs wrote:
On Sat, 8 Sep 2001, Uri Guttman wrote:
BW == Brian Wheeler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
BW =item eqv tx, ty, tz *
BW Bitwise Equivalence all bits in y with z and store the result in
BW register x.
that is just !(y xor z). we can
At 07:43 PM 9/8/2001 -0700, Wizard wrote:
Questions regarding Bitwise operators:
=item rol tx, ty, tz *
...
=item ror tx, ty, tz *
Are these with or without carry?
That's a good question. Now that we have a list of bitwise ops, we can
decide how they work. What happens when you
On 9/9/01 11:47 AM, Dan Sugalski wrote:
http://www.allegedlyfunny.com/opcodes.html
I think DWIM might be a bit much, but HCF (Halt, Catch Fire) might be
fun :)
Far too many of those are tempting... :)
Hey, if the PPC can have EIEIO, I see no reason Parrot can't sneak a few fun
ones in...
At 03:51 PM 9/8/2001 -0700, Matthew Cline wrote:
On Saturday 08 September 2001 09:00 am, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Okay, I'm whipping together the fancy math section of the interpreter
assembly language. I've got:
sin, cos, tan : Plain ones
asin, acos, atan : arc-whatevers
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 07:43 PM 9/8/2001 -0700, Wizard wrote:
Questions regarding Bitwise operators:
=item rol tx, ty, tz *
...
=item ror tx, ty, tz *
Are these with or without carry?
That's a good question. Now that we have a list of bitwise ops, we can
Just curious, would it be practical to design-in a boolean-specific
register/set of registers? There are many processors (PICC, 8051, etc.)
which would likely be better able utilize their own optimizations if this
were the case ( bitset, testbit, high, low, etc.). It could be done without
the
BW Roll y left z bits and store the result in x.
BW [what are the valid values for z?]
isn't that rotate left? rotate should require z to be the word size or
less. or we can define it to work modulo the word size. which reminds
me, is there going to be a simple language way to
At 01:54 PM 9/9/2001 -0700, Wizard wrote:
Just curious, would it be practical to design-in a boolean-specific
register/set of registers? There are many processors (PICC, 8051, etc.)
which would likely be better able utilize their own optimizations if this
were the case ( bitset, testbit, high,
At 11:03 PM 9/8/2001 -0500, Brian Wheeler wrote:
On Sat, 2001-09-08 at 22:24, Uri Guttman wrote:
BW == Brian Wheeler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Looking at the opcodes as presented in the PDD, they're hauntingly like
the alpha codes (maybe Dan's favorite isn't the vax, but the alpha :)
I made
At 11:24 PM 9/8/2001 -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
BW == Brian Wheeler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
BW =item and tx, ty, tz *
BW Bitwise And all bits in y with z and store the result in register x.
BW (x = y z)
just a minor thought on parrot assembler argument order. dan seems to
have
At 10:19 PM 9/8/2001 -0500, Brian Wheeler wrote:
Out of curiosity, will there be a NOP instruction? I guess we really
wouldn't need one, since things like ADD I0,I0,0 is effectively a NOP
and the Dan has indicated he wanted to keep the bytecode read-only, so
there'd be no need for it after
Jeremy Howard:
# Uri Guttman wrote:
# BS == Benjamin Stuhl [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
#
# Can anyone think of things I've forgotten? It's been a
# while since
# I've done numeric work.
#
#BS ln, asinh, acosh, atanh2?
#
# dan mentioned log (base anything) but i don't recall ln.
#
On Sat, 08 Sep 2001 13:02:04 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Uri mentioned exp(x) = e^x, but I think if you are going to include
log2, log10, log, etc, you should also include ln.
Added.
Er... aren't ln and log synonyms?
--
Bart.
DS == Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DS At 01:54 PM 9/9/2001 -0700, Wizard wrote:
Just curious, would it be practical to design-in a boolean-specific
register/set of registers? There are many processors (PICC, 8051, etc.)
which would likely be better able utilize their own
DS == Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DS Names should be in all lower case, and short but not truncated. Try to
DS avoid underscores, but shift_l and shift_r are OK. (I'll get to the
DS underscore issues later)
two suggestions. first in the parrot asm PDD, codify that (maybe
DS == Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DS That's a good question. Now that we have a list of bitwise ops, we
DS can decide how they work. What happens when you
DS rotate/shift/bit-or a float? Or a bitint/bigfloat? Or a string?
DS Important questions, and we can hammer something
DS == Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DS Yeah, I can't think of a good reason for a noop. We might have one
DS anyway, though, just in case one comes along anyway.
in a hardware cpu they were commonly used to fill an instruction slot to
keep a pipeline filled, or to follow a branch
At 03:14 PM 9/8/2001 -0500, Brian Wheeler wrote:
On Sat, 2001-09-08 at 11:00, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Okay, I'm whipping together the fancy math section of the interpreter
assembly language. I've got:
sin, cos, tan : Plain ones
asin, acos, atan : arc-whatevers
shinh, cosh,
On Sat, 2001-09-08 at 15:28, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 03:14 PM 9/8/2001 -0500, Brian Wheeler wrote:
On Sat, 2001-09-08 at 11:00, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Okay, I'm whipping together the fancy math section of the interpreter
assembly language. I've got:
sin, cos, tan : Plain ones
Okay, I'm whipping together the fancy math section of the interpreter
assembly language. I've got:
sin, cos, tan : Plain ones
asin, acos, atan: arc-whatevers
shinh, cosh, tanh : Hyperbolic whatevers
log2, log10, log: Base 2, base 10, and explicit base logarithms
DS == Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DS Okay, I'm whipping together the fancy math section of the interpreter
DS assembly language. I've got:
DS sin, cos, tan : Plain ones
DS asin, acos, atan : arc-whatevers
DS shinh, cosh, tanh : Hyperbolic whatevers
DS log2,
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Okay, I'm whipping together the fancy math section of the interpreter
assembly language. I've got:
snip
Can anyone think of things I've forgotten? It's been a while since I've
done numeric work.
Uri mentioned exp(x) = e^x, but I think if you are
At 12:12 PM 9/8/2001 -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
DS == Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DS Can anyone think of things I've forgotten? It's been a while since
I've
DS done numeric work.
i am not being picky, but there is secant, and arc hyperbolics too. you
can derive secant from
At 12:29 PM 9/8/2001 -0400, Buddha Buck wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Okay, I'm whipping together the fancy math section of the interpreter
assembly language. I've got:
snip
Can anyone think of things I've forgotten? It's been a while since I've
done numeric work.
Uri
On Saturday 08 September 2001 12:00 pm, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Okay, I'm whipping together the fancy math section of the interpreter
assembly language. I've got:
sin, cos, tan : Plain ones
asin, acos, atan : arc-whatevers
shinh, cosh, tanh : Hyperbolic whatevers
log2, log10,
At 01:38 PM 9/8/2001 -0400, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
On Saturday 08 September 2001 12:00 pm, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Okay, I'm whipping together the fancy math section of the interpreter
assembly language. I've got:
sin, cos, tan : Plain ones
asin, acos, atan : arc-whatevers
On Sat, Sep 08, 2001 at 12:00:24PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
pow : Raise x to the y power
You forgot biff, zap and womp!
--
Michael G. Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/
Perl6 Quality Assurance [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kwalitee Is Job One
DS == Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1/x is often handy, although maybe not enough to justify its own opcode.
(It is often used in other calculations, however, so perhaps one opcode
would be better than 3.)
sqrt has traditionally been provided in languages, although it
MGS == Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
MGS On Sat, Sep 08, 2001 at 12:00:24PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
pow: Raise x to the y power
MGS You forgot biff, zap and womp!
zap is an ibm 360/370/390 assembler op code and i bet they
On Sat, Sep 08, 2001 at 02:55:36PM -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
zap is an ibm 360/370/390 assembler op code and i bet they
trademarked/patented/whatevered its name. :)
Zero and Add Packed.
gawd, i can't believe i remembered that. i don't recall exactly what it
does but i think it was
On Sat, 2001-09-08 at 11:00, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Okay, I'm whipping together the fancy math section of the interpreter
assembly language. I've got:
sin, cos, tan : Plain ones
asin, acos, atan : arc-whatevers
shinh, cosh, tanh : Hyperbolic whatevers
log2, log10, log
On Saturday 08 September 2001 04:14 pm, Brian Wheeler wrote:
While not math, per se, there are bitops (and, or, not, xor, eqv) and
shifts (though they can be simulated by mul tx,ty,(2^bits) and div
tx,ty,(2^bits))
There will be bitops.
I doubt rolls would be useful :)
Vuja de.
Are
On Saturday 08 September 2001 09:00 am, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Okay, I'm whipping together the fancy math section of the interpreter
assembly language. I've got:
sin, cos, tan : Plain ones
asin, acos, atan : arc-whatevers
shinh, cosh, tanh : Hyperbolic whatevers
log2, log10,
--- Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Okay, I'm whipping together the fancy math section of
the interpreter
assembly language. I've got:
sin, cos, tan : Plain ones
asin, acos, atan : arc-whatevers
shinh, cosh, tanh : Hyperbolic whatevers
log2, log10, log : Base
On Sat, 2001-09-08 at 22:24, Uri Guttman wrote:
BW == Brian Wheeler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
BW =item and tx, ty, tz *
BW Bitwise And all bits in y with z and store the result in register x.
BW (x = y z)
just a minor thought on parrot assembler argument order. dan seems to
DS == Dave Storrs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DS On Sat, 8 Sep 2001, Uri Guttman wrote:
BW == Brian Wheeler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
BW =item eqv tx, ty, tz *
BW Bitwise Equivalence all bits in y with z and store the result in
BW register x.
that is just !(y xor z). we
JH == Jeremy Howard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
JH Uri Guttman wrote:
BS == Benjamin Stuhl [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Can anyone think of things I've forgotten? It's been a while since
I've done numeric work.
BS ln, asinh, acosh, atanh2?
dan mentioned log (base
On Sat, 2001-09-08 at 21:43, Wizard wrote:
Questions regarding Bitwise operators:
=item rol tx, ty, tz *
...
=item ror tx, ty, tz *
Are these with or without carry?
If not, is there a need for a RCL/RCR (with carry...and carry where)?
I'd think without, since I've not seen any
BW == Brian Wheeler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
BW =item and tx, ty, tz *
BW Bitwise And all bits in y with z and store the result in register x.
BW (x = y z)
just a minor thought on parrot assembler argument order. dan seems to
have picked the result register to be first. my
BS == Benjamin Stuhl [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Can anyone think of things I've forgotten? It's been a while since
I've done numeric work.
BS ln, asinh, acosh, atanh2?
dan mentioned log (base anything) but i don't recall ln. and definitely
the arc hyberbolics are in after i pointed
64 matches
Mail list logo
