RE: [perl #17817] [PATCH] Parrot_sprintf-related stuff, part 2

2002-10-11 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 12:25 PM -0700 10/11/02, Brent Dax wrote: Argh. It looks like all the tests on PPC with the varargs core are failing, but the test with the PMC core (t/op/string.t #96) isn't. I don't get it--are they *trying* to make varargs impossible to use?!? No, that's just a happy side-effect. :) Da

Re: the getting started guide

2002-10-11 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 3:19 PM -0400 10/11/02, Erik Lechak wrote: Since I am writing, I have a few stupid questions for you guys (sorry, I hope that by asking these question others won't have to): 1) I subscribed to the perl6 mailing list, I get two of each message. One addressed to me and the other cc'd to perl6

Re: [PATCH] Removing two-arg ne

2002-10-11 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 9:02 PM +0100 10/11/02, Nicholas Clark wrote: On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 01:30:33PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote: At 7:10 PM +0200 10/10/02, Leopold Toetsch wrote: > >There are also 2 operand math operations of dubious achievement: >Each of them will be doubled for each RHS INT argument givin

Re: [perl #17817] [PATCH] Parrot_sprintf-related stuff, part 2

2002-10-11 Thread Andy Dougherty
> Brent, what do you need to help work this out? Is there anyone out > there who could loan a PPC account to Brent, or perhaps be familiar > enough with stdarg to take a look directly? (Or how about some > grizzled grayhair who can tell us if this approach is doomed for > portability reasons? Not

Re: [PATCH] Removing two-arg ne

2002-10-11 Thread Nicholas Clark
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 01:30:33PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote: > At 7:10 PM +0200 10/10/02, Leopold Toetsch wrote: > > > >There are also 2 operand math operations of dubious achievement: > >Each of them will be doubled for each RHS INT argument giving ~25 opcodes. > > Those are all for the: > >

RE: [perl #17817] [PATCH] Parrot_sprintf-related stuff, part 2

2002-10-11 Thread Brent Dax
Brent Dax: # Can someone with a PPC box try to figure out why this is happening? # # /op/string.# Failed test (t/op/string.t at line # 1224) # # got: '-1.13014e-302 # # -1.13014e-302 # # ' # # expected: '80.43 # # -1.1 # # ' #

Re: the getting started guide

2002-10-11 Thread Erik Lechak
Aldo Calpini wrote: > > >www.cygwin.com > >full-blown command-line CVS. you won't miss *nix again ;-) > > I downloaded version 1.2 of WinCVS and that cvs.exe supports pserver. I just wanted to ensure that the instructions I give on the guide are accurate. Now I specify the 1.2 version in

RE: [perl #17817] [PATCH] Parrot_sprintf-related stuff, part 2

2002-10-11 Thread Brent Dax
Andy Dougherty: # On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Brent Dax wrote: # # > Can you try this? # > # > (at the top of the function...) # > va_list *arg = (va_list *) & (obj->data); # > (vararg accesses should look like...) # > va_arg(*arg, ...); # > (no end-of-function assignment should be n

Re: [PATCH] Removing two-arg ne

2002-10-11 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 7:10 PM +0200 10/10/02, Leopold Toetsch wrote: > >There are also 2 operand math operations of dubious achievement: > >5 add >2 sub >4 mul >1 div >2 mod > >Each of them will be doubled for each RHS INT argument giving ~25 opcodes. Those are all for the: a op= b form. There's a minor benef

Re: [perl #17817] [PATCH] Parrot_sprintf-related stuff, part 2

2002-10-11 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 9:11 AM -0700 10/11/02, Steve Fink wrote: >Brent, what do you need to help work this out? Is there anyone out >there who could loan a PPC account to Brent, or perhaps be familiar >enough with stdarg to take a look directly? (Or how about some >grizzled grayhair who can tell us if this approach

Re: [perl #17817] [PATCH] Parrot_sprintf-related stuff, part 2

2002-10-11 Thread Steve Fink
On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 09:57:01AM -0400, Andy Dougherty wrote: > On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Brent Dax wrote: > > > Can you try this? > > > > (at the top of the function...) > > va_list *arg = (va_list *) & (obj->data); > > (vararg accesses should look like...) > > va_arg(*arg, ...); >

[perl #17865] [PATCH] Re-unite comment & function

2002-10-11 Thread via RT
# New Ticket Created by Simon Glover # Please include the string: [perl #17865] # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue. # http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=17865 > One of the comments in trace.c has got separated from the function it's describing.

[perl #17864] [PATCH] Warnings fixes

2002-10-11 Thread via RT
# New Ticket Created by Simon Glover # Please include the string: [perl #17864] # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue. # http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=17864 > Brent's sprintf patch introduced a couple of new warnings here: exceptions.c: In f

[BUG] SIGSEGV sprintf GC?

2002-10-11 Thread Leopold Toetsch
A probably GC related bug emerged with the new sprintf code. Putting "sweepoff" in front of the PASM avoids the bug. Running various tests with the -d flag SIGSEGVs at printing memory statistics: $ time parrot -d t/pmc/intlist_6.pbc *** Parrot VM: Debugging enabled. *** *** Parrot VM: Setting u

Re: [INFO] New array base: list.c

2002-10-11 Thread Josef Hook
On Tue, 8 Oct 2002, Leopold Toetsch wrote: > Leon Brocard wrote: > > > Leopold Toetsch sent the following bits through the ether: > > > > > >>So I rewrote the base routines almost from scratch and have currently a > >>file named list.c > >> > > > > I for one am confused as to t

Re: [INFO] New array base: list.c

2002-10-11 Thread Josef Hook
> - can handle sparse arrays, saving many MBs for very sparse arrays What is the complexity on the algoritm? /Josef

Re: [INFO] New array base: list.c

2002-10-11 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Josef Hook wrote: > >>- can handle sparse arrays, saving many MBs for very sparse arrays >> > > What is the complexity on the algoritm? Here is a snippet docu, from my recent changes, not checked in yet: [ get_chunk ... locate List_chunk, calc index in chunk ] * The scheme of opera

Re: [perl #17844] [PATCH] Avoid JIT on Sparc with 64-bit INTVAL and 32-bit pointers

2002-10-11 Thread Nicholas Clark
On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 06:52:25PM +, Andy Dougherty wrote: > # New Ticket Created by Andy Dougherty > # Please include the string: [perl #17844] > # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue. > # http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=17844 > > > > The com

Re: the getting started guide

2002-10-11 Thread Aldo Calpini
Erik Lechak wrote: > Yep I cut and pasted it right from my console. I'll download the newest > realease and try it again and try v1.2. If someone could tell me where > to get cvs for windows without all the GUI that would be great. www.cygwin.com full-blown command-line CVS. you won't miss *n

Re: Steps toward parrot 0.0.9 and beyond

2002-10-11 Thread Steve Fink
On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 09:12:03AM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote: > I did post 3 major proposals for the next big changes in parrot > internals - but I'm lacking somehow final answers on these. > > There seems to be a general consens to do these changes though. > > So here is a summary of the ne

Re: [PATCH] Removing two-arg ne

2002-10-11 Thread Steve Fink
On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 12:06:54PM -0400, Simon Glover wrote: > > On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote: > >> At 7:42 PM -0700 10/8/02, Steve Fink wrote: >>>Thanks, applied. >>> >>>Who came up with the idea of two-argument ne, anyway? That's kind of >>>bizarre. >> >> Definitely bizarre. I think

Re: Failed src tests on Win32

2002-10-11 Thread Nick Kostirya
> Known issue. Right now, the code behind Parrot::Test::c_output_is > doesn't work on Windows. But thanks for reporting this--had we not > known about it already, it probably would have thrown us into a blind > panic. :^) I remember that the testers for cygwin was necessary. Is they necessary