On Wed Feb 25 16:08:29 2009, jk...@verizon.net wrote:
> On Thu Jan 29 06:15:28 2009, Whiteknight wrote:
> >
> > has the remove_pic branch landed yet?
>
>
> Well, it's still an active branch in SVN. So I would guess not.
Per discussion on the mailing list, we're removing the remove_pic branch
Will Coleda via RT wrote:
Apparently "remove the files" isn't exactly what was meant here. This probably removes the
need for the remove_pic branch, which is in the process of taking this to its literal extreme.
We do need to remove the files, and the remove_pic branch is on the
right track
On Thursday 25 December 2008 23:29:28 Allison Randal via RT wrote:
> CGP is too important to be deprecated over something as small as this.
If it were important, we'd test it and maintain the code. We don't, ergo
-- c
Will Coleda via RT wrote:
I created a branch (remove_pic) to remove src/pic.c; This led to the removal of pic.ops, and
changes in imc, packfile... lots of references to PIC.
chromatic mentioned on #parrot that if we remove PIC, we're going to break all the
predereferenced runcores. After som
On Tuesday 23 December 2008 18:47:23 Geoffrey Broadwell wrote:
> On the other hand, I'm somewhat concerned that Parrot 1.0 will either
> itself be rather slow, or will architecturally force HLL implementations
> to be slow. While looking for the IRC discussion mentioned by Coke, I
> found the fol
On Tue, 2008-12-23 at 17:31 -0800, Will Coleda via RT wrote:
> chromatic mentioned on #parrot that if we remove PIC, we're going to break
> all the
> predereferenced runcores. After some discussion, this probably means ripping
> out:
>
> 16:42 <@chromatic> Everything other than the default core
