Re: [PATCH] Re: Getting the grammar engine in (or a small task for the interested)

2004-11-20 Thread Lars Balker Rasmussen
Andy Dougherty [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: --- parrot-orig/compilers/p6ge/p6ge_gen.c Fri Nov 19 08:53:40 2004 +++ parrot-andy/compilers/p6ge/p6ge_gen.c Fri Nov 19 14:43:43 2004 /* strcon(...) converts string values into PIR string constants */ static char* -strcon(const char* s, int

Re: Exceptions, sub cleanup, and scope exit

2004-11-20 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Exceptions are not, by default, resumable. Are there non-default resumable exceptions? leo

Re: [PATCH] Re: Getting the grammar engine in (or a small task for the interested)

2004-11-20 Thread Patrick R. Michaud
On Fri, Nov 19, 2004 at 04:30:06PM -0500, Andy Dougherty wrote: Ok, here's a first pass. Most of it is pretty straightforward, but one thing is worth noting: The code uses both signed and unsigned chars, with and without the 'const' qualifier. I gather this is a deliberate part of a

Re: First public release of grammar engine

2004-11-20 Thread Patrick R. Michaud
On Sat, Nov 20, 2004 at 12:18:17AM +, Nicholas Clark wrote: $ ../../parrot demo.pir input /pattern, string to match, + to continue match, ? to print pir, / Unrecognized character at offset 1 (found '') Segmentation fault Is this a known limitation? [Done after Andy's patch went in]

Re: [PATCH] Re: Getting the grammar engine in (or a small task for the interested)

2004-11-20 Thread Patrick R. Michaud
On Sat, Nov 20, 2004 at 09:23:36AM +0100, Lars Balker Rasmussen wrote: Andy Dougherty [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: /* strcon(...) converts string values into PIR string constants */ static char* strcon(const char* s, int len) Haven't looked at the code yet, but I'll just observe that

Re: [PATCH] Re: Getting the grammar engine in (or a small task for the interested)

2004-11-20 Thread Andy Dougherty
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004, Patrick R. Michaud wrote: On Fri, Nov 19, 2004 at 04:30:06PM -0500, Andy Dougherty wrote: Ok, here's a first pass. Most of it is pretty straightforward One spot I may have goofed: I changed some initializations from to NULL, which is, of course, rather a different

Two broken benchmarks

2004-11-20 Thread Joshua Gatcomb
All: oo1-prop.pasm and oo2-prop.pasm are both broken. The only way I knew this was that there times in the benchmark graphs had dropped off the map. It was previously proposed to make the benchmarks part of the test suite being sure not to include anything that took a substantial amount of time

PIC for more MOPS but not only

2004-11-20 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Ken Fox (perl6 Kakapo) has mailed me a link [1] and some hints about PIC - Polymorphic Inline Cache. This is quite an interesting idea about dynamic recompiling and caching of method lookups. And it smells like more MOPS and generally just a faster Parrot VM. So I've hacked together an initial

Re: COND macros

2004-11-20 Thread Gabe Schaffer
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 15:35:44 +0100, Leopold Toetsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gabe Schaffer wrote: Win32 doesn't require anything else, but I don't think I like this idea. If you do COND_INIT(c, m) and Win32 ignores the 'm', what happens when some code goes to LOCK(m)? It would work under

Re: COND macros (was: Threads, events, Win32, etc.)

2004-11-20 Thread Gabe Schaffer
Parrot's locks will all have wait/signal/broadcast capabilities. We should go rename the macros and rejig the code. This may have to wait Really? I'm not sure I understand what broadcast does on a lock. Are you talking about something like P5's condpair? If so, why not just cop that code? Of

Re: [PATCH] Re: Getting the grammar engine in (or a small task for the interested)

2004-11-20 Thread Patrick R. Michaud
On Sat, Nov 20, 2004 at 10:46:03AM -0500, Andy Dougherty wrote: On Fri, 19 Nov 2004, Patrick R. Michaud wrote: On Fri, Nov 19, 2004 at 04:30:06PM -0500, Andy Dougherty wrote: Ok, here's a first pass. Most of it is pretty straightforward One spot I may have goofed: I changed some

Inconsistent opcode names

2004-11-20 Thread William Coleda
Is there a reason why we have find_type, but loadlib; eq_str but isnull ?