On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 6:33 AM, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday 13 April 2008 08:14:11 Senaka Fernando wrote:
>
> > The build of Parrot fails with g++, which is a possible indication that
> it
> > fails on other C++ compilers too. I have attached herewith patches to
> some
> > is
Update: Discussed this with particle, who requested that we revert to
the revision before 26790 for the purpose of getting us through this
week's release. This was done tonight in r26966.
We'll resume analysis after the release.
Thank you very much.
kid51
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 7:36 PM, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sunday 13 April 2008 19:30:50 Bob Rogers wrote:
>
> >From: "James Keenan via RT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 19:13:01 -0700
> >
> >But here is a patch which partially implements the object
Hearing no objections, am resolving ticket.
From: chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 19:36:38 -0700
On Sunday 13 April 2008 19:30:50 Bob Rogers wrote:
>From: "James Keenan via RT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 19:13:01 -0700
>
>Still to be addressed is this portion of the OP:
IIRC, Coke recently verified that parrotbug is working (even if not
ideally).
Is that so? Can we close this RT?
thanks
kid51
Jonathan: Do you know if we've overcome this problem?
Thank you very much.
kid51
On Sunday 13 April 2008 19:30:50 Bob Rogers wrote:
>From: "James Keenan via RT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 19:13:01 -0700
>
>But here is a patch which partially implements the objective of this RT.
>
> Excellent; thank you. Did you want to apply it, or shall I?
>
>
Coke: Have we overcome this problem?
kid51
From: "James Keenan via RT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 19:13:01 -0700
But here is a patch which partially implements the objective of this RT.
Excellent; thank you. Did you want to apply it, or shall I?
What's missing is a revision of docs/pdds/draft/pdd19_pir.pod.
On Sun Apr 13 08:35:08 2008, rgrjr wrote:
>
>The usages in ncidef2pasm.pl appear to have nothing per se to do with
>these ops . . .
>
> I couldn't even figure out what ncidef2pasm.pl was for, let alone how to
> test it. Is this dead code?
>
Not quite. This is one of a number of scrip
On Sunday 13 April 2008 10:34:22 Ronald Blaschke via RT wrote:
> Here's the result of r26955.
>
> Failed Test Stat Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed
> ---
> t/examples/shootout.t 13 332820 13 65.0
On Mon Apr 07 21:54:27 2008, coke wrote:
> On Tue Apr 24 03:05:33 2007, rblasch wrote:
> The version of parrot this ticket was opened is 11 months old. Can we
> get another test run
> with svn-latest or the latest snapshot from CPAN?
Here's the result of r26955.
Failed Test Stat Wstat
On Sun, 2008-04-13 at 14:35 -0700, chromatic wrote:
> As well, the optimizations I recommend for Parrot (if you want to use
> optimization flags) are:
>
> -O2, to choose the fastest available runcore
Not so, unless this has been fixed without resolving the RT bug:
http://rt.perl.org/rt3//
From: Alberto Simoes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 19:16:39 +0100
This is my fault. I prefer smooth curves.
But I think smash can include the gplot data together with the source code.
That would be ideal.
>3. A semi-log plot would be easier to interpret.
Smas
On Sunday 13 April 2008 08:14:11 Senaka Fernando wrote:
> The build of Parrot fails with g++, which is a possible indication that it
> fails on other C++ compilers too. I have attached herewith patches to some
> issues.
Thanks, applied as r26965, except for the patch to compilers/imcc/imclexer.c,
# New Ticket Created by Bob Rogers
# Please include the string: [perl #52858]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=52858 >
If you run the following PASM code:
new P0, 'Integer'
set P0, 77
On Mi. 19. Mär. 2008, 07:38:36, pmichaud wrote:
> > On Thu Dec 13 17:47:05 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > Implement a 'copy' assignment (at least until we get the 'copy'
> > > opcode -- see RT#47828).
The copy opcode has been added in r23917.
Can this ticket be resolved now?
Regards,
Ber
# New Ticket Created by "Senaka Fernando"
# Please include the string: [perl #52854]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=52854 >
The build of Parrot fails with g++, which is a possible indication that it
fails on
Bob Rogers wrote:
From: "Nuno 'smash' Carvalho" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 18:57:26 +0100
Greetings all,
We did another Parrot benchmarking, this time using a common
programming technique: recursion. We created a function to calculate
the number of nodes in a
From: chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 14:35:11 -0700
. . .
If they're stable (and they're not always perfectly stable), -Oc should
improve the recursion benchmark.
-- c
AFAICS, there are no calls in tail position, and hence no opportunity
for tailcall opt
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 3:07 PM, Patrick R. Michaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 02:01:50PM -0700, chromatic wrote:
> > On Sunday 13 April 2008 11:26:45 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > Modified:
> > >trunk/src/main.c
> > >
> > > Log:
> > > [gettext] setup get
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 02:50:42PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Modified:
>trunk/languages/perl6/src/builtins/control.pir
>
> Log:
> [rakudo] First cut at eval. Sucks because it doesn't allow
> you to use variables in the lexical scope the code is
> compiled in. Yet.
FWIW, I had a note
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 02:01:50PM -0700, chromatic wrote:
> On Sunday 13 April 2008 11:26:45 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Modified:
> >trunk/src/main.c
> >
> > Log:
> > [gettext] setup gettext in parrot main
>
> If this happens in src/main.c, it won't be in libparrot, so anyone who wants
On Sunday 13 April 2008 10:57:26 Nuno 'smash' Carvalho wrote:
> We did another Parrot benchmarking, this time using a common
> programming technique: recursion. We created a function to calculate
> the number of nodes in a full binary tree given the tree's height. I
> guess this time the results
On Sunday 13 April 2008 11:26:45 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Modified:
>trunk/src/main.c
>
> Log:
> [gettext] setup gettext in parrot main
If this happens in src/main.c, it won't be in libparrot, so anyone who wants
to embed Parrot (and use gettext) will have to enable it explicitly in the
e
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 07:21:06PM +0100, Nuno 'smash' Carvalho wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 7:06 PM, Patrick R. Michaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 06:57:26PM +0100, Nuno 'smash' Carvalho wrote:
> > > Greetings all,
> > >
> > > We did another Parrot benchmark
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 7:13 PM, Bob Rogers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>From: "Nuno 'smash' Carvalho" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 18:57:26 +0100
>
>
>
>Greetings all,
>
> We did another Parrot benchmarking, this time using a common
>programming technique: recursi
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 7:06 PM, Patrick R. Michaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 06:57:26PM +0100, Nuno 'smash' Carvalho wrote:
> > Greetings all,
> >
> > We did another Parrot benchmarking, this time using a common
> > programming technique: recursion. We created a f
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 12:53:31PM -0700, Bob Rogers wrote:
> # New Ticket Created by Bob Rogers
> # Please include the string: [perl #52778]
> # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
> # http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=52778 >
>
>
>As the transc
From: "Nuno 'smash' Carvalho" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 18:57:26 +0100
Greetings all,
We did another Parrot benchmarking, this time using a common
programming technique: recursion. We created a function to calculate
the number of nodes in a full binary tree giv
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 06:57:26PM +0100, Nuno 'smash' Carvalho wrote:
> Greetings all,
>
> We did another Parrot benchmarking, this time using a common
> programming technique: recursion. We created a function to calculate
> the number of nodes in a full binary tree given the tree's height. I
>
Greetings all,
We did another Parrot benchmarking, this time using a common
programming technique: recursion. We created a function to calculate
the number of nodes in a full binary tree given the tree's height. I
guess this time the results where not so satisfactory, for Parrot. You
can see the
From: "Patrick R. Michaud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 10:56:08 -0500
For others who may be reading this ticket/thread, I just want to
reconfirm and/or verify that we're *not* intending to eliminate
the bsr/ret opcodes themselves from Parrot . . .
Yes, that is correc
From: "Patrick R. Michaud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 11:59:42 -0500
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 11:34:33AM -0400, Bob Rogers wrote:
>From: "James Keenan via RT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 05:28:17 -0700
>
>Of these five files, the onl
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 11:34:33AM -0400, Bob Rogers wrote:
>From: "James Keenan via RT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 05:28:17 -0700
>
>Of these five files, the only ones that we (or, more to the point, I)
>could not safely do right away is languages/BASIC/compiler/c
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 09:05:38AM -0700, Bernhard Schmalhofer via RT wrote:
> On Mi. 19. Mär. 2008, 07:38:36, pmichaud wrote:
>
> > > On Thu Dec 13 17:47:05 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > Implement a 'copy' assignment (at least until we get the 'copy'
> > > > opcode -- see RT#47828).
>
>
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 08:24:57PM -0700, Bob Rogers wrote:
>This is a prerequisite to removing the "user_stack" operations.
> These ops can be found easily by adding:
>
> real_exception(interp, NULL, 1, "Stack op 'xyz' used.\n");
>
> to the code in src/ops/stack.ops, running "make test
From: "James Keenan via RT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 05:28:17 -0700
On Sat Apr 12 20:20:30 2008, rgrjr wrote:
> There are only a few uses/references left in the
> codebase:
>
>/usr/src/parrot/docs/pdds/draft/pdd06_pasm.pod
>/usr/src/parrot/docs/
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 8:55 PM, Nuno 'smash' Carvalho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 8:18 PM, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Friday 11 April 2008 12:02:23 Nuno 'smash' Carvalho wrote:
> >
> > > I just posted a little Parrot benchmark in my use.perl's journa
I recently obtained shell accounts on some Solaris boxes. Today I made
my first attempt to compile and build Parrot on one of them.
Configuration was very smooth. See log attached. Note for reference:
Determining if your platform supports GMP.yes.
...
Determining if your platform sup
This appears to have been corrected by pmichaud with the same fix used
in RT 52680. Closing ticket.
On Sun Mar 30 17:13:30 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Let me see if I can get the original tester to post an update.
>
No luck on this. Closing this ticket. If the issue pops up again
elsewhere, we'll open a new ticket.
On Sat Apr 12 20:20:30 2008, rgrjr wrote:
> There are only a few uses/references left in the
> codebase:
>
> /usr/src/parrot/docs/pdds/draft/pdd06_pasm.pod
> /usr/src/parrot/docs/pdds/draft/pdd19_pir.pod
> /usr/src/parrot/editor/kate_syntax.pl
> /usr/src/parrot/languages/
Author: kjs
Date: Sun Apr 13 05:08:55 2008
New Revision: 26955
Modified:
trunk/docs/pdds/draft/pdd29_compiler_tools.pod
Log:
[pdd29] add a few more things so i won't forget.
Modified: trunk/docs/pdds/draft/pdd29_compiler_tools.pod
==
# New Ticket Created by Bob Rogers
# Please include the string: [perl #52840]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=52840 >
This is a prerequisite to removing the "user_stack" operations.
These ops can be found
# New Ticket Created by Bob Rogers
# Please include the string: [perl #52842]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=52842 >
The ops in src/ops/stack.ops are holdovers from the bad old days of
limited registers.
# New Ticket Created by Bob Rogers
# Please include the string: [perl #52838]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=52838 >
These are holdovers from the bad old days of limited registers. In
the rare case where
48 matches
Mail list logo
