Dan~
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 13:14:00 -0500, Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 1:11 PM -0500 11/16/04, Matt Fowles wrote:
>
>
> >Dan~
> >
> >On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 13:00:39 -0500, Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> At 12:56 PM -0500 11/16/04, Matt Fowles wrote:
> >> >At line 72,
At 1:11 PM -0500 11/16/04, Matt Fowles wrote:
Dan~
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 13:00:39 -0500, Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 12:56 PM -0500 11/16/04, Matt Fowles wrote:
>At line 72, "Note that fact if a return continuation object is created
>explicitly, rather than by an invocation op," wha
Dan~
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 13:00:39 -0500, Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 12:56 PM -0500 11/16/04, Matt Fowles wrote:
> >At line 72, "Note that fact if a return continuation object is created
> >explicitly, rather than by an invocation op," what is the remainder of
> >this sentence?
>
At 12:56 PM -0500 11/16/04, Matt Fowles wrote:
Dan~
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 12:22:23 -0500, Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
An updated PDD 03 is in the repository. It's
clear on what the caller populates, what the
callee sees, and what happens to all the
different registers.
At line 72, "No
Dan~
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 12:22:23 -0500, Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> An updated PDD 03 is in the repository. It's
> clear on what the caller populates, what the
> callee sees, and what happens to all the
> different registers.
At line 72, "Note that fact if a return continuation ob
At 5:11 PM +0100 11/16/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Stéphane Payrard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Probably, the timing of the proposition is wrong.
I'd appreciate a discussion about the mentioned issues
An updated PDD 03 is in the repository. It's
clear on what the caller populates, what the
callee
Stéphane Payrard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Probably, the timing of the proposition is wrong.
I'd appreciate a discussion about the mentioned issues, which are
serious in my opinion. These issues have to be addressed, sooner or
later.
I didn't propose to make changes now, just the opposite.
l
At 4:49 PM +0100 11/16/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
What part of "This stuff isn't going to change" hasn't been clear?
Your sentence below answering Matt's question about dismissing my
arguments lightly?
There is quite a difference between "not change. Period" and "not change no
Dan Sugalski wrote:
What part of "This stuff isn't going to change" hasn't been clear?
Your sentence below answering Matt's question about dismissing my
arguments lightly?
There is quite a difference between "not change. Period" and "not change
now".
At 2:15 PM -0500 11/8/04, Matt Fowles wrote:
On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 10:48:18AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 4:48 PM +0100 11/16/04, Stéphane Payrard wrote:
> >Putting your architect hat, Dan, can you spell a policy in this matter?
>
> Sure.
>
> The calling conventions are fixed. They are not going to change
> again.
You are not answeri
At 4:48 PM +0100 11/16/04, Stéphane Payrard wrote:
Putting your architect hat, Dan, can you spell a policy in this matter?
Sure.
The calling conventions are fixed. They are not going to change again.
--
Dan
--it's like this
On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 08:52:10AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 11:43 AM +0100 11/16/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> >Below inline/attached is a proposal for new calling conventions -
> >for the archive as Dan doesn't like changes now, but I haven't to
> >backup it, when its out ;)
>
> Alright,
At 11:43 AM +0100 11/16/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Below inline/attached is a proposal for new calling conventions -
for the archive as Dan doesn't like changes now, but I haven't to
backup it, when its out ;)
Alright, that does it. I am *tired* of this. I'm tired of the
sniping, I'm tired of th
Below inline/attached is a proposal for new calling conventions - for
the archive as Dan doesn't like changes now, but I haven't to backup it,
when its out ;)
A proposal for new calling conventions - for the archive as Dan
doesn't like changes now, but I haven't to backup it, when its out ;)
Cen
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
1) Indirection of register pointer(s)
[ snip ]
- Creating a continuation and returning it to the caller of a subroutine
(or storing it in a lexical/global) would need to COW copy the register
frame stack, so that the deeper register frame is preserved in the
continuation.
Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 6:40 PM +0200 9/8/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
[ register backing stacks ]
> The register spilling code could easily use them
See 1) below
That makes the interpreter unbearable slow and non-competitive. That's
the reason for my alternate calling scheme proposal.
Then we put i
16 matches
Mail list logo
