Simon Glover wrote:
At 12:18 PM +0200 8/5/03, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
First: any changes here imply, that assemble.pl/disassemble.pl will
seeze to work.
Well, there's disassemble.c, which pdb uses; does that do everything
that you want?
All packfile.c based utilities are fine, as disassemble.
On Tue, 5 Aug 2003, Stephen Thorne wrote:
> > It seems to me that if we want to maximize the
> > number of languages using it, the generic
> > compiler shouldn't depend on anything but
> > C and parrot... But until we get it working,
> > I'd like to stick to a dynamic language like
> > python/perl
On Tuesday, August 05 at 2003 2:40 PM, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 12:12 AM -0400 8/5/03, Melvin Smith wrote:
> >At 11:37 PM 8/4/2003 -0400, Brent Dax wrote:
> >>Jonathan Worthington:
> >>> work something out. :-) However, Brent said "If you mean
precompiled
> >>> binaries, not yet. Parrot is sti
At 12:12 AM -0400 8/5/03, Melvin Smith wrote:
At 11:37 PM 8/4/2003 -0400, Brent Dax wrote:
Jonathan Worthington:
work something out. :-) However, Brent said "If you mean precompiled
binaries, not yet. Parrot is still under development, so we aren't
shipping
binaries.", so I'm guessing maybe I
On Sun, 3 Aug 2003, K Stol wrote:
> > What do you think? Want to try squishing pirate/python
> > and pirate/lua together? :)
>
> Yeah, I like the idea. Let's try this out.
Well, I finished reading your report[1] and
posted some of my (rather unorganized) thoughts
up at [2]
It does seem like t
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here's some stuff we need to add to the packfile format and the sub
> header to get things ready for more language work.
First: any changes here imply, that assemble.pl/disassemble.pl will
seeze to work. So first step would be: grep the tree and remove all
Benjamin Goldberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Actually, I meant generation set to MAX_INT, not 0.
>
> Marking pmcs as free happens at the end of DOD. Marking pmcs as live or
> dead happens earlier. I was thinking of something like:
>
>foreach(pmc in all_pmcs) {
...
>}
>fo