[perl #17533] [PATCH] Re: Goal call for 0.0.9

2002-09-23 Thread via RT
# New Ticket Created by Andy Dougherty # Please include the string: [perl #17533] # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue. # http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=17533 > On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, H.Merijn Brand wrote: > > > > cd languages/perl6 > > >

Re: Goal call for 0.0.9

2002-09-23 Thread H.Merijn Brand
On Mon 09 Sep 2002 22:22, Andy Dougherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, H.Merijn Brand wrote: > > [HP-UX 11.00, GNU gcc-3.2] > > > > cd languages/perl6 > > > make > > > > For gcc (which was the last I used) I got :( > > > > /usr/bin/ld -o imcc imcparser.o imclexer.o imc.

Re: Goal call for 0.0.9

2002-09-10 Thread Andy Dougherty
On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Will Coleda wrote: > Nicholas Clark wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 03:02:55PM -0400, Andy Dougherty wrote: > > For development and testing, I believe that we should exercise (and then > > exorcise) all the bugs in all the languages we can find. > Any particular reason no

Re: Goal call for 0.0.9

2002-09-09 Thread Will Coleda
Any particular reason not to have a specific make target for the tinderboxen? Nicholas Clark wrote: > On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 03:02:55PM -0400, Andy Dougherty wrote: > >>On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Sean O'Rourke wrote: >> >> >>>On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Andy Dougherty wrote: >> Now why that [languages] i

Re: Goal call for 0.0.9

2002-09-09 Thread Andy Dougherty
On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, H.Merijn Brand wrote: [HP-UX 11.00, GNU gcc-3.2] > > cd languages/perl6 > > make > > For gcc (which was the last I used) I got :( > > /usr/bin/ld -o imcc imcparser.o imclexer.o imc.o stacks.o symreg.o instructions.o >cfg.o sets.o debug.o anyop.o ../../platform.o

Re: Goal call for 0.0.9

2002-09-09 Thread Nicholas Clark
On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 03:02:55PM -0400, Andy Dougherty wrote: > On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Sean O'Rourke wrote: > > > On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Andy Dougherty wrote: > > > > Now why that [languages] isn't part of the default build, I don't > > > know. > > > None of the stuff in languages/ is part of the

Re: Goal call for 0.0.9

2002-09-09 Thread Markus Laire
On 9 Sep 2002 at 15:02, Andy Dougherty wrote: > On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Sean O'Rourke wrote: > > > None of the stuff in languages/ is part of the default build, and I think > > it should stay that way. It seems like bad form to, by default, build > > parts of a package that the user may not want t

Re: Goal call for 0.0.9

2002-09-09 Thread Andy Dougherty
On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Sean O'Rourke wrote: > On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Andy Dougherty wrote: > > Now why that [languages] isn't part of the default build, I don't > > know. > None of the stuff in languages/ is part of the default build, and I think > it should stay that way. It seems like bad form to

Re: Goal call for 0.0.9

2002-09-09 Thread Sean O'Rourke
On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Andy Dougherty wrote: > Thanks for running the tests. If you're really ambitious, you could > > cd languages/perl6 > make > > and see what happens, but unless you've got bison and flex installed, > don't bother (I submitted a patch to pregenerate the files, but it'

Re: Goal call for 0.0.9

2002-09-09 Thread H.Merijn Brand
On Mon 09 Sep 2002 17:39, Andy Dougherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, H.Merijn Brand wrote: > > > On Mon 02 Sep 2002 22:25, Andy Dougherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Similarly, it may be a good time to revisit our "core" platforms and see > > > if they all work.

Re: Goal call for 0.0.9

2002-09-09 Thread Andy Dougherty
On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, H.Merijn Brand wrote: > On Mon 02 Sep 2002 22:25, Andy Dougherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Similarly, it may be a good time to revisit our "core" platforms and see > > if they all work. A lot of the library stuff, especially the shared > > library stuff, is rather d

Re: Goal call for 0.0.9

2002-09-02 Thread Andy Dougherty
On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Nicholas Clark wrote: > *) Careful elimination of all compiler warnings, particularly on non x86 >platforms, and for builds with non-default INTVAL size I agree here. There are still *lots* of warnings. I've slowly whittled away at them, but there are lots to go. Fixin

Re: Goal call for 0.0.9

2002-09-02 Thread Nicholas Clark
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 11:15:17AM -0700, Steve Fink wrote: > On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 08:25:30AM -0700, Sean O'Rourke wrote: > > On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote: > > > > > Here's a call for potential goals for the 0.0.9 release of parrot. My list: > > > > > > *) Exceptions > > > *) initial

Re: Goal call for 0.0.9

2002-09-02 Thread Steve Fink
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 08:25:30AM -0700, Sean O'Rourke wrote: > On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote: > > > Here's a call for potential goals for the 0.0.9 release of parrot. My list: > > > > *) Exceptions > > *) initial PMC freeze/thaw API > > *) Sub indicators in bytecode > > *) On-the-fly b

Re: Goal call for 0.0.9

2002-09-02 Thread Sean O'Rourke
On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote: > Here's a call for potential goals for the 0.0.9 release of parrot. My list: > > *) Exceptions > *) initial PMC freeze/thaw API > *) Sub indicators in bytecode > *) On-the-fly bytecode section generation *) methods (in PASM and C) *) implementation of som

Goal call for 0.0.9

2002-09-02 Thread Dan Sugalski
Here's a call for potential goals for the 0.0.9 release of parrot. My list: *) Exceptions *) initial PMC freeze/thaw API *) Sub indicators in bytecode *) On-the-fly bytecode section generation Anyone got any others? We can get the list together and then prioritize from there. --