At 12:30 PM 10/28/2003 +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Melvin Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You'll have to edit interpreter.h and set PARROT_CATCH_NULL to 1
> to enable it.
Turned on now by default.
Good.
> The patch adds the Null PMC class, only instantiated once in
> system memory.
... which
Melvin Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just in time for the "screamin' punkin" release
> You'll have to edit interpreter.h and set PARROT_CATCH_NULL to 1
> to enable it.
Turned on now by default.
> The patch adds the Null PMC class, only instantiated once in
> system memory.
... which wa
Just in time for the "screamin' punkin" release
I've patched in a quick and dirty implementation of the previous
discussion regarding Parrot segfaulting on access to a null register.
Of course, HLL compilers shouldn't generate code that results in
an uninitialized Px register, but we would lik
ttp://nntp.x.perl.org/group/perl.perl6.internals/16081
Subject: Register access
From: mcharity[at]vendian.org (Mitchell N Charity)
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 19:42:54 -0400
These patches differ from the proposal in two main respects:
(1) The macro names are different, REGISTER_INT vs REG_INT.
It turned
Yep. Seems reasonable. The macros would improve readability IMHO
As long as they don't impair debugability.
(I make a reference to perl5's macros containing macros, which do
different things based on other macros, and other fun things. It's a
fine line.)
-R
"Sean O'Rourke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 30 May 2003, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
>> Ha ha, just kidding, of course. I'm all for it, but given my record
>> today, that might be an imminent sign of its rejection.
>
> Or, given your historical record, you may have just killed the thread ;).
Th
At 5:54 PM +0200 5/31/03, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Mitchell N Charity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At a minimum, it would be nice for some register access macro set to
be globally available.
REG_PMC(0) = method;
Yep. Seems reasonable. The macros would improve readability IMHO
Abso
Mitchell N Charity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At a minimum, it would be nice for some register access macro set to
> be globally available.
>REG_PMC(0) = method;
Yep. Seems reasonable. The macros would improve readability IMHO
> Mitchell
leo
On 30 May 2003, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> Ha ha, just kidding, of course. I'm all for it, but given my record
> today, that might be an imminent sign of its rejection.
Or, given your historical record, you may have just killed the thread ;).
/s
On Fri, 2003-05-30 at 19:42, Mitchell N Charity wrote:
> Eeep.
{snip snip}
> So...
>
> I suggest existing register access be replaced with a new macro set
>#define REG_INT(x) interpreter->ctx.int_reg.registers[x]
>#define REG_NUM(x) interpreter->ctx.num_reg.r
debug.ops
method_util.c
ops2cgc.pl
register.c
trace.c
There are about 166 uses of interpreter->ctx. which are not FOO_reg.registers.
so what?
The vast majority of register accesses (~90%) are simply cut-and-pastes of 4
interpreter->ctx.FOO_reg.registers[BAR]
strings.
R
11 matches
Mail list logo
