Aaron Sherman wrote:
On Mon, 2005-05-02 at 08:58 +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
The vtable functions C and C, which take now a string, are a
bit heavy-weighted and might get an extension in the log run that take
an integer flag.
Unless this happens, this would be a HUGE performance hit. After all,
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 09:23:01PM -0700, chromatic wrote:
> Parrot bundles Test::Builder 0.11 (from Test-Simple 0.41). Is it worth
> upgrading?
Couldn't hurt. A whole mess of is_deeply() bugs have been fixed since
0.41.
--
Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pobox.com/~sch
On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 15:36 -0700, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> Test::Simple/More/Builder 0.61 will introduce a change to Test::Builder
> whereby the BAILOUT() method becomes BAIL_OUT(). Additionally Test::More
> finally features a BAIL_OUT() function.
>
> Using cpansearch [1] I've determined that
Bob~
On 5/3/05, Bob Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>. . . but I can't figure out why. I thought the patch below would
> help, but it appears that the value of c is itself broken somehow.
>
> . . .
> This GDB was configured as "i586-suse-linux"...
> (gdb) r runtime/parrot/libra
. . . but I can't figure out why. I thought the patch below would
help, but it appears that the value of c is itself broken somehow.
. . .
This GDB was configured as "i586-suse-linux"...
(gdb) r runtime/parrot/library/config.pbc
Starting program: /usr/src/parrot/disassemble
ru
Perl 6 Summary for 2004-04-26 through 2005-05-03
All~
Welcome to another weeks summary. This week I shall endeavor not to
accidentally delete my summary or destroy the world. So here we go with
p6c.
Perl 6 Compilers
implicit $_ on for loops
Kiran Kumar found a bug in pugs
On Mon, 2005-05-02 at 08:58 +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 1 bit for SVf_IOK
> > 1 bit for SVf_NOK
> > 1 bit for SVf_POK
> > 1 bit for SVf_ROK
>
> I'd not mess around with (or introduce) flag bits. The more that this
> would only cover perl5 PMCs. Pr
Starting May 4, to ease the transition to regular releases, we'll not
so much freeze as slush the code base. Please don't do anything
destabilizing (to the code base :-)) in the next few days. I expect
the slush will last a few days as well.
The plan is to make a release branch for each release,
The short story
---
I've just committed a new, rewritten version of PGE to the Parrot
repository. It's still somewhat preliminary and many rule features
are still missing. On the other hand, it's now written entirely
in PIR (no more C compiling!) and provides a stronger base plat
If someone wanted to convert languages/tcl in such a fashion, that would be
cool.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: bernhard
Date: Tue May 3 14:32:31 2005
New Revision: 7965
Added:
trunk/languages/m4/src/builtin.pir
- copied, changed from rev 7963, trunk/languages/m4/src/builtin.imc
tr
Test::Simple/More/Builder 0.61 will introduce a change to Test::Builder
whereby the BAILOUT() method becomes BAIL_OUT(). Additionally Test::More
finally features a BAIL_OUT() function.
Using cpansearch [1] I've determined that you all are the only current
users of BAILOUT() on CPAN. Ponie, Parr
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 10:35:50AM -0700, chromatic wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 14:48 +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
>
> > > And should they eventually even be autogenerated ;)
> > Now, that bit I agree with. A task for someone who likes writing perl?
>
> I like writing Perl. Where can I find t
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 09:22:11PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> Whilst I confess that it's unlikely to be me here, if anyone has the time
> to contribute some help, do you have a list of useful self-contained tasks
> that people might be able to take on?
Following some discussion on #perl6, it s
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 02:33:25PM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
[snip the good bit]
Three cheers for Patrick.
Boo hiss to real life, especially when it gets in the way.
> Not yet implemented, but coming soon (rough priority order):
>
> - updated test harness/test suite
> - cut operation
Because I want to embed PGE in Pugs, I end up embedding the
entire libparrot. :-)
As of two hours ago, if you set the PUGS_EMBED environment
variable to "parrot" and run perl Makefile.PL, Pugs will
build and link against Parrot, and provide a require_parrot()
primitive for you. JIT works as one o
# New Ticket Created by jerry gay
# Please include the string: [perl #35195]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# https://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=35195 >
i couldn't find documentation on the behavior of IMCC if the @MAIN
subpragma was defined o
On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 14:48 +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> > And should they eventually even be autogenerated ;)
> Now, that bit I agree with. A task for someone who likes writing perl?
I like writing Perl. Where can I find the source information, where
should I write it, and how should it look?
Bob Rogers wrote:
How about extending ".return" to cover these:
.return foo(x, ...) # tail function call
.return o.foo(x, ...) # tail method call
Done - rev 7959.
More tests are welcome, as always. See imcc/t/syn/tail.t for existing ones.
leo
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 02:55:22PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> Nicholas Clark wrote:
> >Should There be a Parrot_PMC_push_pmc() [and friends?] in extend.h to allow
> >parrot-extending code direct access to those vtable methods?
> >
> >Eventually, should extend.h contain methods to make calls on
Nicholas Clark wrote:
Should There be a Parrot_PMC_push_pmc() [and friends?] in extend.h to allow
parrot-extending code direct access to those vtable methods?
Eventually, should extend.h contain methods to make calls on all public vtable
methods?
Yep. Think so. But note that all "vtables" denoted M
Should There be a Parrot_PMC_push_pmc() [and friends?] in extend.h to allow
parrot-extending code direct access to those vtable methods?
Eventually, should extend.h contain methods to make calls on all public vtable
methods?
Nicholas Clark
Below is a POD that tries to the describe an extensible calling scheme
that should cover most of our targets HLLs call syntax.
Comments welcome,
leo
=head1 TITLE
Calling convention abstraction
=head1 ABSTRACT
The current Parrot calling conventions as described in
F are not covering major
parts
Vladimir Lipsky wrote:
It's state is set to PREVIOUS_STATE+FINISHED
So it's never equal to just FINISHED
Ah, Yep. Works for JOINABLE, which is 0, but ...
Typo or what?
Inexact ;-)
leo
And on the third hand, if I understood the code correctly ...
src/threads.c: 40: thread_func()
src/threads.c: 53: interpreter->thread_data->state |=
THREAD_STATE_FINISHED;
src/threads.c: 312: pt_thread_join ()
src/threads.c: 321: if (interpreter->thread_data->state ==
THREAD_STATE_JOINABLE ||
sr
Sorry, I forgot to attach necessary legal bits to the last two patches I
applied:
new n_arithmetics tests
Courtesy of Bob Rogers
[Patch] Win32 thread primitives
Courtesy of Vladimir Lipsky
leo
Vladimir Lipsky wrote:
threads_4 is testing killing threads. This is achieved by scheduling a
terminate event to the running interpreter. This can only succeed, if
the event system is running too.
see src/events.c/Parrot_new_terinate_event()
Though thr_windows.h doesn't contain error checking fo
26 matches
Mail list logo
