On Oct 30, Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> took up a keyboard and banged out
> At 10:19 AM 10/30/2001 -0500, Michael Fischer wrote:
> >On Oct 29, Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> took up a keyboard and banged out
> > > At 03:33 PM 10/29/2001 -0500, Ken Fox wrote:
> > > >Anybody do a gcc-specific
At 10:19 AM 10/30/2001 -0500, Michael Fischer wrote:
>On Oct 29, Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> took up a keyboard and banged out
> > At 03:33 PM 10/29/2001 -0500, Ken Fox wrote:
> > >Anybody do a gcc-specific "goto *pc" dispatcher
> > >for Parrot yet? On some architectures it really
> > >cooks.
At 04:24 PM 10/30/2001 +, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Tue, Oct 30, 2001 at 10:19:10AM -0500, Michael Fischer wrote:
> > Also, my understanding was that the goto *pc _was_ indeed very
> > gcc specific, and therefore a no-no for parrot. Thoughts?
>
>If we have switchable runops cores, I'm cool with
On Tue, Oct 30, 2001 at 10:19:10AM -0500, Michael Fischer wrote:
> Also, my understanding was that the goto *pc _was_ indeed very
> gcc specific, and therefore a no-no for parrot. Thoughts?
If we have switchable runops cores, I'm cool with having
compiler-specific stuff. But wouldn't it be cool
On Oct 29, Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> took up a keyboard and banged out
> At 03:33 PM 10/29/2001 -0500, Ken Fox wrote:
> >Anybody do a gcc-specific "goto *pc" dispatcher
> >for Parrot yet? On some architectures it really
> >cooks.
>
> That's a good question. There was talk and benchmark num
At 03:33 PM 10/29/2001 -0500, Ken Fox wrote:
>Anybody do a gcc-specific "goto *pc" dispatcher
>for Parrot yet? On some architectures it really
>cooks.
That's a good question. There was talk and benchmark numbers from a variety
of different dispatchers.
C'mon folks, kick in the code. I'll weld d
Anybody do a gcc-specific "goto *pc" dispatcher
for Parrot yet? On some architectures it really
cooks.
- Ken
