Dan Sugalski wrote:
... These are the things going in, and in
the order they're going in:
Could you comment on current unresolved issues:
- string_set, reusing string headers
- the inconsistencies in the PASM examples, especially the last one in
this thread:
"[CVS ci] string_set is back for a
Angel Faus wrote:
Hmm wouldn't the JIT benifit from a pre knowledge of basic
blocks and types or some information ? ... (I seem to think so
...).
I would think so, because if, for example, the JIT wants to do a full
register allocation to map parrot registers to machine registers, it
wou
I sat around trying to think of a witty, pithy way to make this
announcement more surreal or frightening than it really is and failed. So
I guess I'll let it stand on it's own.
I've just completed a complete re-write of BASIC for Parrot. This time
I've used QuickBASIC as a model which means
appened to be zeroed so this was never caught. HTH,
I'd like to get more involved with Parrot.
Dave
Isa. 40:31
-- attachment 1 --
url: http://rt.perl.org/rt2/attach/41470/33354/96560c/parrot-patch-2002
diff -u io/old_io.c io/io.c
> Hmm wouldn't the JIT benifit from a pre knowledge of basic
> blocks and types or some information ? ... (I seem to think so
> ...).
I would think so, because if, for example, the JIT wants to do a full
register allocation to map parrot registers to machine registers, it
would certainly nee
If memory serves me right, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Sure. Or at least not forbidden.
k ...
> that case, why bother verifying?
Hmm wouldn't the JIT benifit from a pre knowledge of basic blocks
and types or some information ? ... (I seem to think so ...).
> at runtime anyway. With a full scan o
At 9:25 PM +0530 11/11/02, Gopal V wrote:
If memory serves me right, Dan Sugalski wrote:
All you need to do is change the offset a bit to point to an opcode
and you'll be fine.
Hmm... you mean to say that a jump to a non-instruction is valid ? ..
Sure. Or at least not forbidden.
We've had
If memory serves me right, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> All you need to do is change the offset a bit to point to an opcode
> and you'll be fine.
Hmm... you mean to say that a jump to a non-instruction is valid ? ..
We've had the verifiability question hashed out ... but jump target
validation is one
At 10:02 AM -0500 11/11/02, Michael Collins wrote:
Hi,
This may be an ignorant statement since I just joined this list, but I noticed
that the parrot "branch" assembly instruction doesn't work and
sometimes causes
a core dump on Linux 2.4.
Oh, it works, you just need to understand it properly.
At 1:19 PM +0530 11/11/02, Gopal V wrote:
If memory serves me right, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Should be reasonably straightforward. Hopefully quick, too, as I'm
pressed for time here.
--
Hmm... Object frameworks ? ... (or is that shelved for the present ?)
Not shelved, no. (And arguably the in
Hi,
This may be an ignorant statement since I just joined this list, but I noticed
that the parrot "branch" assembly instruction doesn't work and sometimes causes
a core dump on Linux 2.4.
--
example 1:
setI0, 16
branch 3
print "a"
print "b"
print "c"
print "d"
print "\n"
Andy Dougherty wrote:
On Sun, 10 Nov 2002, Clinton A. Pierce wrote:
Grabbing the last few snapshots from dev.perl.org, I can't find one that'll
build under Win32. During Configure.PL I get these errors:
Determining stack growth direction...'.\test.exe' is not recognized as an
internal or e
Jerome Quelin (via RT) wrote:
# New Ticket Created by Jerome Quelin
# Please include the string: [perl #18320]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=18320 >
And yet another bug discovered thanks to my Befunge int
On Sun, 10 Nov 2002, Clinton A. Pierce wrote:
> Grabbing the last few snapshots from dev.perl.org, I can't find one that'll
> build under Win32. During Configure.PL I get these errors:
>
> Determining stack growth direction...'.\test.exe' is not recognized as an
> internal or extern
> al comma
# New Ticket Created by Jerome Quelin
# Please include the string: [perl #18320]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=18320 >
And yet another bug discovered thanks to my Befunge interpreter (would you
please stop
# New Ticket Created by Andy Dougherty
# Please include the string: [perl #18319]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=18319 >
I've gotten no negative feedback (no positive either, but that's normal)
so I propose
If memory serves me right, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> Should be reasonably straightforward. Hopefully quick, too, as I'm
> pressed for time here.
> --
Hmm... Object frameworks ? ... (or is that shelved for the present ?)
Gopal
--
The difference between insanity and genius is measured by success
17 matches
Mail list logo
