Re: [Proposal] new pmc class: matrix

2002-06-14 Thread Nick Kostirya
> What do you all think about adding a matrix class. > It would be really usefull to have it as a class.. It's excellent! > It would be really usefull to have builtin vector operations like > transpose eigevects etc... I think lately about it. I like multivariate analysis. But I cannot unfortun

[JIT] bsr/ret in native code

2002-06-14 Thread Aldo Calpini
hello there, in one of my endless tours inside the JIT world, I came up with this idea which seems to give a major speed increase. basically, I'm substituting the Parrot method for subroutines (push the current address in the call stack and then jump) with a plain native x86 ASM call instruction

Re: [Proposal] new pmc class: matrix

2002-06-14 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 8:54 AM +0200 6/14/02, =?latin1?Q?Josef_H=F6=F6k?= wrote: >What do you all think about adding a matrix class. >It would be really usefull to have it as a class.. [Snip] >A third option maybe (if its possible) would be to actually adding above >syntax to the assembler but that would probably l

Re: [JIT] bsr/ret in native code

2002-06-14 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 9:54 AM +0200 6/14/02, Aldo Calpini wrote: >you would >not be able, for example, to inspect the call stack from inside a Parrot >program anymore. That, unfortunately, makes it untenable, since we need to be able to do this in the general case. Also, we'll fill up the thread stack pretty quic

Re: [JIT] bsr/ret in native code

2002-06-14 Thread Larry Wall
On Fri, 14 Jun 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote: : At 9:54 AM +0200 6/14/02, Aldo Calpini wrote: : >you would : >not be able, for example, to inspect the call stack from inside a Parrot : >program anymore. : : That, unfortunately, makes it untenable, since we need to be able to : do this in the general

Re: [JIT] bsr/ret in native code

2002-06-14 Thread Larry Wall
On Fri, 14 Jun 2002, Nicholas Clark wrote: : But surely an routine that calls another routine can potentially have its : stack inspected by the caller? Certainly. : So it would only make sense for leaf nodes, and even then they might : get inspected by overloaded values or methods on objects tha

Re: [JIT] bsr/ret in native code

2002-06-14 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 1:49 PM -0700 6/14/02, Larry Wall wrote: >On Fri, 14 Jun 2002, Nicholas Clark wrote: >: Or would the property of "I don't use caller or want" still be useful on a >: subroutine, because the run-time could determine that it would be >: inline-able (or whatever) inside a loop at run time, based o