"Joshua Isom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But why should the result be an unportable/undocumented parrot op? If
parrot's aiming for portability, so long as external libraries aren't
used, shouldn't parrot treat code the same way for all platforms?
Otherwise, each compiler for parrot would have
On Nov 4, 2005, at 18:24, Joshua Isom wrote:
[ please top-post ]
But why should the result be an unportable/undocumented parrot op? If
parrot's aiming for portability, so long as external libraries aren't
used, shouldn't parrot treat code the same way for all platforms?
Otherwise, each com
On Nov 4, 2005, at 12:06, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
The opcode is currently implemented as $1 = 0.0 - $2; But
this is not the same as $1 = -$2 in the case of $2 being 0.0. The
former gives 0.0, the version with negate gives -0.0.
Implemented now including an additional test for the Float PMC (
On Fri, 2005-11-04 at 04:14 -0800, Nick Glencross wrote:
> As hinted in an earlier email, I'd like to propose the addition of a
> return type to the new_callback signature. This will add consistency,
> and prevent breakage when we support other NCI backends.
Does this need documentation?
-- c
But why should the result be an unportable/undocumented parrot op? If
parrot's aiming for portability, so long as external libraries aren't
used, shouldn't parrot treat code the same way for all platforms?
Otherwise, each compiler for parrot would have to add in code to find
out the size of i
# New Ticket Created by jerry gay
# Please include the string: [perl #37611]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# https://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=37611 >
it's been noticed that there are a number of languages that have been
left unmaintained fo
Here's another update to the ffcall POC that I posted a week or two
ago. It's now got a Configure test to work out which backend to use
(and an --ask option to override).
It still needs more work (which is fine as there's a feature freeze),
and some work on memory allocation and stuff. I also need
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 11:02:42AM -0500, Will Coleda wrote:
> The mail list strips out .t attachments (Robert? is this necessary?)
This was changed on perl5-porters a few weeks ago, and since then I
don't recall seeming a marked increase in troff spam.
--
Paul Johnson - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http:
No, it isn't. =)
The mail list strips out .t attachments (Robert? is this necessary?)
Please follow the instructions at http://www.parrotcode.org/
patchfaq.html, or inline the file to the list.
Thanks.
On Nov 4, 2005, at 8:36 AM, Tomo wrote:
Please refer to attached souce and test case.
> Rejigging NCI to use the ffcall library
> Nick Glencross wondered about rejigging NCI, the parrot Native Call
> Interface to use the ffcall library. In fact he went so far as to offer
> up a proof of concept implementation. Apparently the ffcall approach
> makes it much easier to write callba
We're long overdue for a status update on the grammar engine
(aka PGE), so here's a quick summary of recent changes and
improvements. My thanks go out to many people on irc #parrot
who have been helping with testing and feature implementations,
and especially particle for the incredible tests he's
>Please refer to attached souce and test case.
Sorry, I miss test case -- attached.
The Perl 6 Summary for the week ending 2005-10-30
Hmm... Thursday afternoon and I've only just started writing the
summary... What happened to professionalism? What happened to rigid,
albeit self-imposed deadlines?
Um... I've had a cold. The cats ate my homework.
This week in perl
Nick Glencross (via RT) wrote:
Guys,
As hinted in an earlier email, I'd like to propose the addition of a
return type to the new_callback signature. This will add consistency,
and prevent breakage when we support other NCI backends.
I've also made a change to the 'unhandled signature' which di
.t files seem to be routinely stripped when sending to the list.
If you follow: http://www.parrotcode.org/patchfaq.html, then the
files still won't make it to the list, but they *will* be added to
the generated ticket.
Regards.
On Nov 4, 2005, at 8:58 AM, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Tomo wro
Matt Fowles (via RT) wrote:
This patch fixes a warning in main.c by removing an unnecessary strdup
and following free. One test fails, t/p6rules/modifiers.t, but I
think it is unrelated.
Good catch. Thanks, applied - r9772.
leo
Tomo wrote:
Hello,
I enjoy Parrot and tried to write new two opcodes -- suspend and resume.
suspend opcode is to halt interpreter and resume opcode is to restart
interpreter from where it suspended.
Hmm. How does the C opcode execute, when the runloop was left?
Please refer to attached souce
The next release 0.3.1. will happen at Sun 6th. I'll start the release
procedure around 12:00 UTC - please no checkins at all after this time
until further notice.
There is kind of a feature freeze from now on, which means: please make
sure that nothing breaks. Parrot corrently tests 100% on x
Hello,
I enjoy Parrot and tried to write new two opcodes -- suspend and resume.
suspend opcode is to halt interpreter and resume opcode is to restart
interpreter from where it suspended.
Please refer to attached souce and test case.
Thank you for reading.
#include "parrot/dynext.h"
VERSION = PARR
# New Ticket Created by Nick Glencross
# Please include the string: [perl #37609]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# https://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=37609 >
Guys,
As hinted in an earlier email, I'd like to propose the addition of a
return ty
Finally :-)
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
The opcode is currently implemented as $1 = 0.0 - $2; But this
is not the same as $1 = -$2 in the case of $2 being 0.0. The former
gives 0.0, the version with negate gives -0.0.
$ gcc -o neg -g neg.c && ./neg # [1] ppc, x86, amd64
0 - f = 0.00
- f
The opcode is currently implemented as $1 = 0.0 - $2; But
this is not the same as $1 = -$2 in the case of $2 being 0.0. The
former gives 0.0, the version with negate gives -0.0.
$ gcc -o neg -g neg.c && ./neg # [1] ppc, x86, amd64
0 - f = 0.00
- f = -0.00
It looks like JIT/ppc i
On Nov 4, 2005, at 1:26, Luke Palmer wrote:
On 11/3/05, Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Shifting anything by >= the bits of the int isn't portable nor
specified.
Why isn't it specified? It seems to me that it should be zero.
C standard (actually from a draft of C99)
If the v
# New Ticket Created by Matt Fowles
# Please include the string: [perl #37604]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# https://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=37604 >
All~
This patch fixes a warning in main.c by removing an unnecessary strdup
and followi
24 matches
Mail list logo
