The patch below places the contents of argv into P0. At the moment it
has the name of the script file in question in P0[0]; I haven't yet
decided if this is to be construed as a feature or a bug. ;^)
A little test script to see that this is working right:
set I0, P0
set I1, 0
On Wed, 30 Jan 2002 17:45:58 +, Graham Barr wrote:
On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 09:32:49AM -0800, Brent Dax wrote:
# rx_setprops P0, i, 2
# branch $start0
# $advance:
# rx_advance P0, $fail
# $start0:
#
On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 10:47:36AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
For various reasons, some of which relate to the sequence-of-integer
abstraction, and some of which relate to infinite strings and arrays,
I think Perl 6 strings are likely to be represented by a list of
chunks, where each chunk is
Peter Haworth:
# On Wed, 30 Jan 2002 17:45:58 +, Graham Barr wrote:
# On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 09:32:49AM -0800, Brent Dax wrote:
# # rx_setprops P0, i, 2
# # branch $start0
# # $advance:
# # rx_advance P0, $fail
# #
At 2:00 AM -0800 1/31/02, Brent Dax wrote:
The patch below places the contents of argv into P0. At the moment it
has the name of the script file in question in P0[0]; I haven't yet
decided if this is to be construed as a feature or a bug. ;^)
Probably a bug, but in the specification.
--
At 2:49 PM + 1/31/02, Tim Bunce wrote:
On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 10:47:36AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
For various reasons, some of which relate to the sequence-of-integer
abstraction, and some of which relate to infinite strings and arrays,
I think Perl 6 strings are likely to be
On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 08:54:21AM -0800, Brent Dax wrote:
Peter Haworth:
# On Wed, 30 Jan 2002 17:45:58 +, Graham Barr wrote:
# On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 09:32:49AM -0800, Brent Dax wrote:
# # rx_setprops P0, i, 2
# # branch $start0
# #
On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Jason Gloudon wrote:
On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 03:27:18PM -0500, Andy Dougherty wrote:
objdump. Is anyone with a Solaris system familiar enough with jit
internals to have a go at adapting it to use dis instead of GNU objdump?
The difference was pretty minimal. It should
On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 12:18:28PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 2:49 PM + 1/31/02, Tim Bunce wrote:
On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 10:47:36AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
For various reasons, some of which relate to the sequence-of-integer
abstraction, and some of which relate to infinite
At 5:34 PM + 1/31/02, Tim Bunce wrote:
On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 12:18:28PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 2:49 PM + 1/31/02, Tim Bunce wrote:
On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 10:47:36AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
For various reasons, some of which relate to the sequence-of-integer
On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 2:49 PM + 1/31/02, Tim Bunce wrote:
On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 10:47:36AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
For various reasons, some of which relate to the sequence-of-integer
abstraction, and some of which relate to infinite strings and arrays,
I
On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 05:15:49PM +, Graham Barr wrote:
Yes, I was assuming that. However what is to be gained by case
folding the input string ?
Because parts of an rx can be case-insensitive while other parts
are case-sensitive, we will probably need two sorts of ops anyway
(or a
This should make solaris 'as' happy. There will be an assembler warning, but
it's harmless.
diff -r1.3 sun4Generic.pm
78c78
return Parrot::Jit-Assemble(ld [\%o0], \%o0\njmpl \%o0, \%g0\n);
---
return Parrot::Jit-Assemble(ld [\%o0], \%o0\njmpl \%o0, \%g0\nnop\n);
151c151
At 7:04 PM + 1/31/02, Nicholas Clark wrote:
Dependencies in the Makefile are currently too broad brush.
I don't enjoy waiting for everything to recompile every time I try to tweak
the jit. The only file that #includes jit_struct.h is jit.c, so I feel
that the Makefile dependencies should
But as you say, case folding is expensive. And with this approach you
are going to case-fold every string that is matched against an rx
that has some part of it that is case-insensitive.
That is correct in general. But regex compiler can be smarter than that.
For example, rx should optimize
Tim Bunce:
# On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 05:15:49PM +, Graham Barr wrote:
#
# Yes, I was assuming that. However what is to be gained by case
# folding the input string ?
#
# Because parts of an rx can be case-insensitive while other parts
# are case-sensitive, we will probably need two
On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 12:50:52PM -0800, Brent Dax wrote:
Let me know if I'm brilliant, on crack, or both with this idea.
I've no idea :-)
Tim.
17 matches
Mail list logo
