On Sat, Nov 10, 2001 at 07:30:25PM +, Leon Brocard wrote:
The attached patch optimises the loop. Note that MOPS numbers now look
slightly different. For example, on my laptop:
Independently discovered at the BSD conference this weekend; I'm checking
in my version of the change, which is
Hello!
I'm on the work of writting something about virtual machines
and I would like to know if there is any report on differences between JVM and
parrot... and if there is any web document about perl5 VM.
Cheers
Alberto
--
f u cn rd ths, u cn gt a gd jb n
On Mon, Nov 12, 2001 at 11:39:44AM +, Alberto Manuel Brandao Simoes wrote:
I'm on the work of writting something about virtual machines
and I would like to know if there is any report on differences
between JVM and parrot...
Sounds like a job for Leon.
and if there is any web
On Mon, Nov 12, 2001 at 12:35:00PM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
| On Mon, Nov 12, 2001 at 11:39:44AM +, Alberto Manuel Brandao Simoes wrote:
| I'm on the work of writting something about virtual machines
| and I would like to know if there is any report on differences
| between JVM and
Robert Spier wrote:
On Sun, Nov 11, 2001 at 07:38:28PM -0500, Ken Fox wrote:
| ... Powerpoint would be a better choice since everybody
| has to deal with that format anyway.
Please, no! Powerpoint is one of the few formats which
cannot be easily read on a non Windows or Mac system. Any
On Sun, Nov 11, 2001 at 08:57:15PM -0800, Brent Dax wrote:
You get the idea? And as for multidimensional stuff, what's wrong with:
fetchlex P1, @lol
fetchary P2, P1, 1
fetchary P3, P2, 2
#...
Consider (from exegesis 2):
my int @hit_count is dim(100,366,24);
I few days ago I suggested inlining some PMC methods
would be good for performance. It turns out that this
question has been heavily studied by the OO community
for at least 10 years. A common solution is to
dynamically replace a method call with the body of the
method wrapped in an if statement.
On Mon, Nov 12, 2001 at 10:15:19AM -0500, Ken Fox wrote:
Where this fits into Parrot's interpreter is that
languages could pre-generate ops corresponding to
dynamically generated inlined caches. All we need is a
way to replace the simple method call op with the
inlined one.
You save one
Leon Brocard sent the following bits through the ether:
o JVM is stack-based, Parrot is register-based (major difference!)
I forgot to point out that details of the JVM are available at:
http://java.sun.com/docs/books/vmspec/2nd-edition/html/VMSpecTOC.doc.html
Leon
--
Leon
I was wondering about *editing* them. IMHO all the data
structures in Parrot must be documented as beautifully as
PerlGuts Illustrated. Parrot is evolving quickly though
and needs documentation that is easy to update.
Yes. Definitely. I think PerlGuts used GraphViz.
dia is probably a worse
G'day all.
On Mon, Nov 12, 2001 at 03:37:08PM +, Leon Brocard wrote:
I forgot to point out that details of the JVM are available [...]
I realise that this _is_ a major difference between Parrot and the
JVM, but you don't need to rub it in. :-)
Cheers,
Andrew Bromage
Robert Spier wrote:
-R (still against Powerpoint for this, but we're sliding off topic.)
Star Office provides power point support, fwiw.
At 10:47 AM 11/12/2001 -0500, Will Coleda wrote:
Robert Spier wrote:
-R (still against Powerpoint for this, but we're sliding off topic.)
Star Office provides power point support, fwiw.
Star Office's presentation module is... not particularly stellar. I've done
a few presentations with it
At 02:44 AM 11/13/2001 +1100, Andrew J Bromage wrote:
G'day all.
On Mon, Nov 12, 2001 at 03:37:08PM +, Leon Brocard wrote:
I forgot to point out that details of the JVM are available [...]
I realise that this _is_ a major difference between Parrot and the
JVM, but you don't need to rub
Simon Cozens wrote:
You save one level of indirection, at a large complexity
cost.
A lot less complexity than a JIT though. 100% portable
code too.
It's also something that can be bolted on later, so there's
no reason to reject it now. I'm just throwing it out to the
list because I know other
At 05:41 PM 11/11/2001 -0500, Michael G Schwern wrote:
So when a variable is first created, all it has is a single bit
representing it's refcount. When allocated, it's turned on. When it
falls out of scope it's flipped off and swept away.
When a variable is referenced a second time, it's
At 11:24 PM 11/11/2001 +, Alex Gough wrote:
Can someone on windows see if this helps?
Close--the read from the run script needs something like it too. With it,
though, CygWin tests just fine. Woohoo!
Thanks, Alex, and committed.
Dan
At 08:38 PM 11/11/2001 -0500, Michael L Maraist wrote:
I've been very eagerly researching GCing techniques; reading whatever
white-papers I could get my hands on. (mostly linkable via previous posts,
or acm.com) I'm by no means finished, but here's what I've discovered so far:
'Kay, two
At 03:02 AM 11/11/2001 -0500, James Mastros wrote:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2001, Leon Brocard wrote:
mops.pasm uses a very simple loop to figure out how many operations a
second parrot can go. However, the loop it uses is inefficient: it
does a branch *and* an eq every time around.
mops.pasm:
At 11:39 AM 11/12/2001 -0500, Ken Fox wrote:
Simon Cozens wrote:
You save one level of indirection, at a large complexity
cost.
A lot less complexity than a JIT though. 100% portable
code too.
It's got the same sort of issue that a lot of other inlining's got, but...
In those cases where
On Mon, Nov 12, 2001 at 11:39:34AM -0500, Ken Fox wrote:
It's also something that can be bolted on later, so there's
no reason to reject it now.
I'm not *reject*ing it now. I'm rejecting it *now*. :)
--
The trouble with computers is that they do what you tell them, not what
you want.
In perl.perl6.internals, you wrote:
At 11:24 PM 11/11/2001 +, Alex Gough wrote:
Can someone on windows see if this helps?
Close--the read from the run script needs something like it too. With it,
though, CygWin tests just fine. Woohoo!
I didn't read the original report, but anytime you
At 09:50 PM 11/10/2001 -0500, Jeff wrote:
The following patch fixes the following bugs with macros:
Applied, with the updated macro.t. Thanks.
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski
At 08:01 PM 11/11/2001 -0500, Jeff wrote:
The subject says it all...
In, thanks.
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have
At 03:35 AM 11/11/2001 -0500, James Mastros wrote:
On Sun, 11 Nov 2001, Alex Gough wrote:
On Sun, 11 Nov 2001, Alex Gough wrote:
ook, cool, but string_length returns an INTVAL, not an int.
Remember that people who say negative usually mean positive, they
just don't know it yet. Always
On Mon, Nov 12, 2001 at 12:05:04PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Will. Docs, darn it! Must have docs! Tests, too, but if you have docs you
can rope someone into writing the tests and the lot of 'ya can submit a
chunk of patches. :)
And if you have docs and tests, you might be able to convince
Michael L Maraist wrote:
No barriers for us?
Generational collectors require a write barrier because
old objects must never point to younger ones. ('Course Dan
said he's starting with a simple copying collector, so we
don't need a barrier. Hmm. I guess Dan's not *reject*ing
a barrier, just
On Friday 09 November 2001 03:36 pm, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Do we want non-PMC lexical support?
Nope, I wasn't going to bother. All variables are PMCs. The int/string/num
things are for internal speed hacks.
But can't a compiler generate one of these internal hacks? My thoughts are
that a
The tinderbox is showing some unhappyness:
http://tinderbox.perl.org/tinderbox/showbuilds.cgi?tree=parrot
I think some things may just need to be kicked.
-R
I note, however, that it is not consumed.
--
Everything that can ever be invented has been invented
- Charles H. Duell, Commisioner of U.S. Patents, 1899.
On Mon, Nov 12, 2001 at 02:20:33PM -0800, Robert Spier wrote:
I think some things may just need to be kicked.
I've kicked *some* things, and I accuse Mr. Goff of now being
able to count up to 8. :) Should be all fine now.
--
FAILURE:
When Your Best Just Isn't Good Enough
Documentation updated, and tests added to t/op/string.t.
The CVS log details most of the changes, but basically:
core.ops - Added ord() opcode
string.c - Added string_ord() and a _string_index() helper function to
help making accommodating different encodings easier. Patched concat()
to deal
Dan gave a list a bit ago about some minimal assumptions about how we'll deal
with memory. I've been researching various memory management techniques, and
I'm noticing that various optimizations can occur if certain assumptions are
made.. It's still early in the game, but I thought it might
33 matches
Mail list logo
