Gregor N. Purdy sent the following bits through the ether:
I'd like to see the folks with other language implementations speak
up again about their current status and desires to have their stuff
in CVS
My JVM - Parrot stuff is going slowly, but parts of a Better Solution
are going up on
At 11:00 PM 10/19/2001 -0400, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
On Friday 19 October 2001 01:46 pm, Dan Sugalski wrote:
I'm currently leaning either towards returning values in registers
[PSIN][0-4] with the total number of each type in register I0 somehow
Order determination of the return values.
At 07:12 PM 10/20/2001 -0400, Sam Tregar wrote:
On 20 Oct 2001, Gregor N. Purdy wrote:
I want to libify everything to the point where Perl wrappers around
the libs allow you to pass the .pasm stuff as a string and get back
a packfile that you can pass on to the interpreter, without firing
At 04:13 PM 10/20/2001 -0700, Robert wrote:
On Thu, 2001-10-11 at 12:24, Dan Sugalski wrote:
No, we don't have to do it in C. We can do it in perl, we just can't
require perl for the initial build. The steps would be:
1) Build minimal perl 6 with default parameters using platform build
At 07:10 PM 10/20/2001 -0400, Sam Tregar wrote:
PS: Can we get this into languages/scheme?
I'm OK with that.
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Okay, we've now got minimal:
*) Parrot assembly
*) Perl
*) Python
*) JVM
*) Scheme
*) Jako
*) Ruby? (Do we? I can't remember for sure)
support for Parrot. This is a cool thing, but it brings up the questions:
1) Do we put them all in the parrot CVS tree
2) Do we require
On Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 10:12:55PM +0200, Mattia Barbon wrote:
Any volunteers to hack in distclean?
What does it exactly do? Delete everything not in MANIFEST?
Yeah, but I did it as part of my PMC fiddling over this past weekend.
--
By God I *KNOW* what this network is for, and you can't
On Mon, Oct 08, 2001 at 06:36:32PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
num_type: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 for same as you, native int, bigint, native
float, bigfloat, object
P1-vtable_funcs[VTABLE_ADD + P2-num_type](P1, P2, P0);
I don't understand the same as you thing; num_type isn't a
At 02:59 PM 10/20/2001 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2001 at 06:36:32PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
num_type: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 for same as you, native int, bigint, native
float, bigfloat, object
P1-vtable_funcs[VTABLE_ADD + P2-num_type](P1, P2, P0);
I don't
At 08:11 PM 10/20/2001 +0200, raptor wrote:
hi,
will it be possible to do this inside Perl program :
use parrot;
...parrot code...
no parrot;
OR
sub mysub is parrot {
parrot code ...
}
I suppose. I hadn't planned on inlining parrot assembly into any other
language. (The first person
On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 11:27:24AM +0200, Paolo Molaro wrote:
... and to go a step further in sanity and maintainability, I'd suggest
using a structure with properly typed function pointers instead of an
array:
typedef void (*parrot_pmc_add) (PMC *dest, PMC *a, PMC *b);
typedef void
On Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 12:20:29PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
I suppose. I hadn't planned on inlining parrot assembly into any other
language. (The first person who suggests an asm() function *will* get
smacked... :) You'll certainly be able to use modules written purely in
parrot
At 03:41 PM 10/21/2001 -0400, Rocco Caputo wrote:
On Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 12:20:29PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
I suppose. I hadn't planned on inlining parrot assembly into any other
language. (The first person who suggests an asm() function *will* get
smacked... :) You'll certainly be
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've given it a few places, but I don't know that I've sent it to
perl6-internals. If not, or if I should do it again, let me know. I want to
make sure we're all on the same page here.
Not that I recall. I thought
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Simon Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've now changed the vtable structure to reflect this, but I'd like someone
to confirm that the variant forms of the ops can be addressed the way I
think they can. (ie. structure-base_element + 1 to get thing after
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jason Gloudon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The stacktest patch will fail on the current CVS source, due to a bug in
push_generic_entry.
This looks good to me so I have committed it. Thanks for spotting it!
Tom
--
Tom Hughes ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
On Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 07:56:08PM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 11:27:24AM +0200, Paolo Molaro wrote:
... and to go a step further in sanity and maintainability, I'd suggest
using a structure with properly typed function pointers instead of an
array:
typedef void
OK, I did a little (stress little) work on PMCs this weekend.
Let me just explain how I see PMCs as working, and then I'll explain what
I've done.
PMCs are essentially objects on which methods are called. These objects
will usually come from pre-defined classes: Parrot will ship with a bunch
of
A while back I wondered if a higher-level VM might be
useful for implementing higher-level languages. I
proposed a lexically scoped machine without registers
or stacks. The response wasn't encouraging.
A quick tour through the library turned up a few
machine designs that sounded very similar to
19 matches
Mail list logo
