Re: Butt-ugliness reduction

2001-11-20 Thread Dave Mitchell
Simon Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 03:29:00PM +, Dave Mitchell wrote: I'd prefer the you have 8 private bits, the rest is Parrot's approach rather than the Parrot has 8 bits and the rest is yours for now, we'll let you know when we want to grab some more back

Re: Butt-ugliness reduction

2001-11-20 Thread Simon Cozens
On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 03:56:15PM +, Dave Mitchell wrote: My bluff has been called! Okay, here's a stab at it. I'm keen that we use enums to define constants, rather than using #define. Nice work. Thanks, applied. -- teco /dev/audio - Ignatios Souvatzis

Psyco - Python specializing compiler

2001-11-20 Thread Angel Faus
Hi, I have found a reference for a very interesting project related to accelerating Python with some nice ideas, that maybe could be applied to Parrot too. It's called Psyco (standing for Python Specializing Compiler) and works (if I understood it right) by creating specialized versions of

Re: sizeof(INTVAL), sizeof(void*), sizeof(opcode_t)

2001-11-20 Thread Ken Fox
James Mastros wrote: In byteswapping the bytecode ... I propose that we make INTVAL and opcode_t the same size, and gaurrenteed to be able to hold a void*. It sounds like you want portable byte code. Is that a goal? It seems like we can have either mmap'able byte code or portable byte code,

Re: sizeof(INTVAL), sizeof(void*), sizeof(opcode_t)

2001-11-20 Thread Brian Wheeler
On Tue, 2001-11-20 at 12:19, Ken Fox wrote: James Mastros wrote: In byteswapping the bytecode ... I propose that we make INTVAL and opcode_t the same size, and gaurrenteed to be able to hold a void*. It sounds like you want portable byte code. Is that a goal? It seems like we can

Re: sizeof(INTVAL), sizeof(void*), sizeof(opcode_t)

2001-11-20 Thread James Mastros
On Tue, 20 Nov 2001, Ken Fox wrote: It sounds like you want portable byte code. Is that a goal? I do indeed want portable packfiles, and I thought that was more then a goal, I thought that was a requirement. In an ideal world, I want a PVM to be intergrated in a webbrowser the same way a JVM is

RE: sizeof(INTVAL), sizeof(void*), sizeof(opcode_t)

2001-11-20 Thread Hong Zhang
On Tue, 20 Nov 2001, Ken Fox wrote: It sounds like you want portable byte code. Is that a goal? I do indeed want portable packfiles, and I thought that was more then a goal, I thought that was a requirement. In an ideal world, I want a PVM to be intergrated in a webbrowser the same way a

ruby perl performance

2001-11-20 Thread Benoit Cerrina
Hi, as Michael G Schwern showed me I posted a wrong information about ruby in this list, after testing I found that ruby and perl performance are roughly equivalent in very simple tests such as a fibonacci's series computation. My misconception came from an older benchmark I did and it did not

[PATCH] Makefile cleans out .pasm, .pbc, .out files from t/op directory

2001-11-20 Thread Jeff G
Presence of old .pasm c files can cause tests to fail because they blindly attempt to write to string17.pasm or whatever. -Jeff [EMAIL PROTECTED]