Josh Wilmes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 11:40 on 06/01/2003 +0200, Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Yep. Imcc should definitely move out off languages into its own subdir
>> under the top level (Not in the top level itself).
> The problem is, if you're really going to do recursive
At 11:40 on 06/01/2003 +0200, Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yep. Imcc should definitely move out off languages into its own subdir
> under the top level (Not in the top level itself).
>
> > ... Who should do
> > this? I'd be willing to help if given direction.
>
>
> Moving dir
Josh Wilmes wrote:
At 14:26 on 05/31/2003 EDT, Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Honestly I'd prefer just a single executable, named
parrot,
I'm all for that as well. It would imply some code reorganization
(placing them in the same directory might make sense, or at least taking
imc
At 14:26 on 05/31/2003 EDT, Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Honestly I'd prefer just a single executable, named
> parrot, that can handle assembly files, rather than the two
> executables we're building now. If we can do that, we can ditch
> assemble.pl.
I'm all for that as well.
Luke Palmer wrote:
[Dan]>> ... Honestly I'd prefer just a single executable, named
[Dan]>> parrot
I would totally dig that. I use imcc for everything; why not just
call it "parrot" :-)
Why don't we just build a single executable, where the main c-source
isn't called test_main.c but parrot.c
> At 1:03 AM +0200 5/29/03, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> >Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> I've been trying to run pbc2c.pl, and it's been dying. I traced the
> >> problem down to Parrot::Packfile thinking that the size of the
> >> bytecode segment is zero. However, it works fine wh
At 1:03 AM +0200 5/29/03, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've been trying to run pbc2c.pl, and it's been dying. I traced the
problem down to Parrot::Packfile thinking that the size of the
bytecode segment is zero. However, it works fine when I use
assemble.pl t
On Wed, 2003-05-28 at 19:03, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> Our current problem is, that we have two assemblers and two PBC formats.
> Keeping all in sync till now ends obviously at test level.
The perl assembler was never intended to be the permanent solution.
Rather, in typical Perl fashion, to get s
Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've been trying to run pbc2c.pl, and it's been dying. I traced the
> problem down to Parrot::Packfile thinking that the size of the
> bytecode segment is zero. However, it works fine when I use
> assemble.pl to compile; the problem only arises when I com
# New Ticket Created by Luke Palmer
# Please include the string: [perl #22352]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=22352 >
I've been trying to run pbc2c.pl, and it's been dying. I traced the
problem down to Parr
10 matches
Mail list logo
