On Sunday 17 February 2002 17:18, Simon Cozens wrote:
> Yes, I'm being an anal retentive asshole. It's my job.
Nah, this time you are not ;P
On to the pdds ...
There seems to be some part missing from pdd2, at the bottom.
And this takes care of the dublicate entries in pdd6, as they seem to ha
On Sunday 07 October 2001 01:16, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
[...]
> One of the more interesting discoveries? Adding a 'default:' case to the
> switch slowed down the Linux runs by several percent.
In that, umh, case: do you have an explanation
or could you provide the code?
Buggs
warning: statement not reached
"basic_opcodes.c", line 270: warning: statement not reached
but make test is ok.
Leaves OpenVMS.
Buggs
On Saturday 29 September 2001 04:45, Gibbs Tanton - tgibbs wrote:
> In perl sin(1) != sin(1.0) or in C or in both?
>
> Also, what version of the OS is this, SunOS 5.8 works fine.
Perl equal and C not equal, that is.
bash-2.03$ perl -le 'if(sin(1) == sin(1.0)){print "equal"}else{print "not equal"
Hoi,
the solaris math functions(sin() ...)
do not return the same value as perl when
called with an integer.
This causes the trans.t to fail.
On solaris sin(1) != sin(1.0).
Buggs
7;t know if that's good or bad.
Buggs
On Thursday 27 September 2001 01:27, Gregor N. Purdy wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2001, Andreas Buggs Hauser wrote:
> > On Wednesday 26 September 2001 23:09, Simon Cozens wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 02:18:11PM -0400, Gregor N. Purdy wrote:
> > > > I've ju
> > the bullets for this commit:
>
> These are pretty huge changes. Can I get some status reports from
> people before we go much further?
bitwise.t fails now on freebsd (intel) perl 5.005_03.
Buggs
ok / test fails
===
iPaq (arm)
make ok / test fails (float errs)
===
Linux (ia64)
make ok / test fails
===
Have fun,
Buggs
ooking in the wrong place or have fixed it.
line 135:
String and integer constants don't need to be put in a separate
Then next paragraph
Buggs
On Monday 24 September 2001 22:59, Buggs wrote:
> On Monday 24 September 2001 22:48, Simon Cozens wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 10:44:33PM +0200, Buggs wrote:
> > > Tru64
> > > make ok / test fails
> >
> > Can I have some more data on this? Works perf
hat and give more detail on why
> the test failed. Did the assembler compile to a PBC ok? Did the interpreter
> segfault? (This is what usually happens.) Or did something else happen?
>
> Would make debugging a lot quicker.
The hack is to upgrade Test::Harness :)
Looks much less wiered.
BTW after updating cygwin(1.3.2 -> 1.3.3) it compiles.
Buggs
On Monday 24 September 2001 22:48, Simon Cozens wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 10:44:33PM +0200, Buggs wrote:
> > Tru64
> > make ok / test fails
>
> Can I have some more data on this? Works perfectly here.
The machine from Compaq Testdrive.
Compaq Tru64 Unix 5.1(JAVA)
)
make ok / test fails (float errs)
===
Buggs
the interpreter. :)
>
> Also looks like there are some bugs in the num register handling that need
> fixing. :(
Just forgotten or is there more to it?
Buggs
Index: basic_opcodes.ops
===
RCS file: /home/perlcvs/parrot/basic
failed, 91.89% okay.
make: *** [test] Error 5
Buggs
Hoi,
This doesn't take into account locale.
line 211:
mkdir("Parrot", 0777) or ( $! =~ /File exists/i or die "Can't make directory ./Parrot:
$!");
On Sunday 16 September 2001 21:43, Buggs wrote:
> Hoi,
>
> probably obsolete soon, but s
Hoi,
probably obsolete soon, but still.
Buggs
Index: Configure.pl
===
RCS file: /home/perlcvs/parrot/Configure.pl,v
retrieving revision 1.5
diff -u -3 -p -r1.5 Configure.pl
--- Configure.pl2001/09/15 00:57:42 1.5
Hoi,
Is this a pattern?
Buggs
Index: Parrot/Opcode.pm
===
RCS file: /home/perlcvs/parrot/Parrot/Opcode.pm,v
retrieving revision 1.3
diff -u -3 -p -r1.3 Opcode.pm
--- Parrot/Opcode.pm 2001/09/15 00:57:42 1.3
+++ Parrot/Opcode.pm
Hoi,
Just not to lie.
Buggs
Index: little_languages/jakoc
===
RCS file: /home/perlcvs/parrot/little_languages/jakoc,v
retrieving revision 1.1
diff -u -3 -p -r1.1 jakoc
--- little_languages/jakoc 2001/09/15 20:58:05 1.1
l considered to be a good thing :-)
What else to check?
> Anyone care to take a shot at it? I hear there's a good text-processing
> language on the net somewhere we could grab and use... ;-)
This should spit out the longest duplicate string in a file
and give its byte positions in that file.
Buggs
longdup.pl
ot; by Jon Bentley.
Listing One is stated to have "found the longest repeated string
in the 4,460,056 character's of the King James Bible in about 36 seconds
on a 600-MHz Celeron processor".
Have fun,
Buggs
On Wednesday 12 September 2001 17:45, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> I just checked PDD 6 into CVS. (parrot/docs/parrot_assembly.pod) Some
> changes since last time, so check it out to see what's up.
>
> Dan
Lines 249 to 261 seem to duplicate 2
23 matches
Mail list logo
