Leopold Toetsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The thing is, 'pushtop' is almost certainly the wrong thing to do. You
should only push the registers you care about onto the register
stacks.
Yes:
$ time parrot -j oofib.imc
fib(28) = 317811 3.050051s
# New Ticket Created by Ilya Martynov
# Please include the string: [perl #27833]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org:80/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=27833
-
IMCC parser
Leopold Toetsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Leopold Toetsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You seem to be mixing up different issues with that statement. Using
plain Continuation PMCs for returning just from subroutines was dead
slow, w or w/o COWed stacks.
# New Ticket Created by Graciliano M. P.
# Please include the string: [perl #27814]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org:80/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=27814
This syntax won't work for array definition:
my @l = ('a' , 'b' , 'c') ;
Hello all,
1) First question is how to tell if variadic function recieved 11 or
12 or more params (for simplicity let's suppose that we use only
pmc parameters).
According calling conventions (pdd03) first 11 params end up in P5-P15
registers and leftover goes into array in P3. The
Ilya Martynov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IMCC parser chokes on empty subs. Simple test case:
.sub _main
_foo()
end
.end
.sub _foo
for now just insert a:
noop
.end
I can imagine that there are a lot of places, where at least one
instruction is assumed to be in ths sub.
Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Leopold Toetsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And finally: I really don't know, if a Continuation needs just pointers
to the stacks (and to which) or (COWed) copies (to which).
If a 'single object per stack frame' approah, the continuation only
needs
Leopold Toetsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Should this really print ParrotClass:
newclass P0, Foo
typeof S0, P0
print S0
print \n
find_type I0, Foo
new P1, I0
typeof S0, P1
print S0
print \n
end
ParrotClass
Foo
Yes.
Leopold Toetsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Okay, as I see it there are two big things that we can do to speed
objects up. (Well, besides speeding up the creation of continuation
PMCs, which I am, at the moment, sorely tempted to put in a special
pool for
Ilya Martynov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello all,
1) First question is how to tell if variadic function recieved 11 or
12 or more params (for simplicity let's suppose that we use only
pmc parameters).
According calling conventions (pdd03) first 11 params end up in P5-P15
registers
Hi,
On Monday 22 March 2004 10:44, Ilya Martynov wrote:
Hello all,
1) First question is how to tell if variadic function recieved 11 or
12 or more params (for simplicity let's suppose that we use only
pmc parameters).
According calling conventions (pdd03) first 11 params end up in
Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How hard would it be to stick all continuations onto a 'weak'
continuation stack (not seen by DOD) then, during DOD, mark the freed
continuations (or the live ones).
The current code is much simpler. s.
void add_to_retc_free_list(Parrot_Interp, PMC*);
At 11:33 AM -0500 3/20/04, Gerald E Butler wrote:
Hello all,
I've been investigating the possibility of creating a MACHINE
DESCRIPTION (aka BACK-END) for GCC to target PARROT. My thinking is
this: If a satisfactory GCC back-end targeting PARROT is created -and-
PARROT is efficient enough
At 12:50 PM +0100 3/22/04, Jens Rieks wrote:
ops/set.ops has setp_ind op which allows to write to register by its
number but it seems there is no op to read register by its number.
I had the same problem, too.
That needs fixing. If you want to throw together a patch, by all
means go for it.
--
Ilya Martynov wrote:
Prints 'P3 is not NULL'
Yep, some minutes ago I've fixed it. Thanks for the test, I've added it
plus another one to CVS.
leo
Jens Rieks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First a note: P3 is now cleared, if P15 is reached. So havin 11 args can
be distinguished from having more then 11 arguments.
Leo, is it easy to alias them as argc[ISPN]?
Yes. It's the same as aliasing Cself to P2. If we can agree on the
variable names, this
LT == Leopold Toetsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
LT Ilya Martynov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello all,
1) First question is how to tell if variadic function recieved 11 or
12 or more params (for simplicity let's suppose that we use only
pmc parameters).
According calling conventions (pdd03)
JR == Jens Rieks [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
JR Hi,
JR On Monday 22 March 2004 10:44, Ilya Martynov wrote:
Hello all,
1) First question is how to tell if variadic function recieved 11 or
12 or more params (for simplicity let's suppose that we use only
pmc parameters).
According calling
The Perl 6 Summary for the week ending 2004-03-21
Spring is sprung, the Equinoctal gales seem to have blown themselves
out, I'm a proud step grandfather and life is generally grand.
So, what's been going on in perl6-internals? I hear you ask. Let's
find out shall we?
Parrot
Jens Rieks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
On Monday 22 March 2004 13:54, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
And P3 := overflow_args ?
P0 := the_sub ??
P1 := return_continuation ?
S0 := method_name ?
Sounds okay. Maybe its better to either alias return_continuation to the
register where P1
Ilya Martynov wrote:
There is a small typo in comment for second test case:
Thanks, fixed.
Plus another test and checks that I3 is really 11.
leo
OK, I think I'm starting to get a better picture of what needs to happen. Does
this sound more reasonable?
Java, C#, Fortran(???), (Managed???)C++, (Other languages with
appropriate non-direct memory access)
== GCC Parser
== Parse Tree
== Enhanced RTL (where
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 09:54:56AM -0500, Butler, Gerald said:
The important point is that the starting language must have semantics which
treat variables, object, etc. as abstract entities to be manipulated not
*memory locations* to be accessed arbitrarily. Then, the parse stage must spit
out
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 10:11 AM -0800 3/10/04, Brent \Dax\ Royal-Gordon wrote:
Josh Wilmes wrote:
It's also quite possible that miniparrot is a waste of time. I'm
pretty much of the opinion myself that it's an academic exercise at
this point, but one which keeps us honest,
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 11:12 AM -0800 3/10/04, Brent \Dax\ Royal-Gordon wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Which, unfortunately, will end up making things a hassle, since
there's no platform-independent way to spawn a sub-process, dammit.
:(
Unixen seem to support system().
D'oh!
Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That would seem like good future proofing. Someday every computer will
have decentish subsecond timing. I hope to see it in my lifetime...
It isn't having the sub-second time in the computer it is the API
to get at it...
My guess is that eventually
Mark Sparshatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm not 100% certain about the details but I think this is how it works.
In languages like C++ objects and classes are completely seperate.
classes form an inheritance heirachy and objects are instances of a
particular class.
However in some languages (I
At 3:23 PM + 3/22/04, Nick Ing-Simmons wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 11:12 AM -0800 3/10/04, Brent \Dax\ Royal-Gordon wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Which, unfortunately, will end up making things a hassle, since
there's no platform-independent way to spawn a sub-process,
At 9:54 AM -0500 3/22/04, Butler, Gerald wrote:
OK, I think I'm starting to get a better picture of what needs to happen. Does
this sound more reasonable?
With the caveat that I know nothing about gcc's internals, it seems
at least reasonable. :)
--
Dan
Hi,
On Monday 22 March 2004 15:46, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Ist rx.ops noch aktuell? Wenn ja schaue ich da auch mal durch.
Ob es so verwendet wird weiß ich nicht. Es sind aber etliche branch ops
dabei.
Done. Hab bei diff nur -w genommen um den Patch klein zu halten.
jens
Index: rx.ops
Sorry, this mail was meant to go directly to Leo.
On Monday 22 March 2004 17:05, Jens Rieks wrote:
Hi,
On Monday 22 March 2004 15:46, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Ist rx.ops noch aktuell? Wenn ja schaue ich da auch mal durch.
Ob es so verwendet wird weiß ich nicht. Es sind aber etliche branch
--- Steve Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Arthur Bergman wrote:
This is Ponie, development release 2
How does one build this on Win32 with MSVC++?
Running the top-level perl Configure.pl got me nowhere, so I cd'd into
parrot and ran perl Configure.pl there. That ran OK, so I tried
* end is now inserted in @MAIN if missing
* in @MAIN P1 isn't moved around
* -Oc: replace savetop with up to 3 pushtopX ops
It's a good idea to declare the main function:
.sub _main @MAIN
...
.end
leo
Nick Ing-Simmons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
..., but I darn well better *know* that I can't sleep(.25), or
strange things are gonna happen.
But you can fake sleep() with select() or whatever.
$ cat sl.pasm
sleep 0.1
end
$ time parrot sl.pasm
real
Since this has gotten to be an issue...
We've definitely got performance issues with continuations. This is
Not Good, since we're using them for control flow. Leo's hacked in a
performance fix, but it's got its own issues. I think it's time for
some thought, and a more unified solution.
Steve Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
but linking parrot.exe fell over with three unresolved externals:
asctime_r, gmtime_r and localtime_r. These are not present in the VC++
header files.
These are fixed in Parrot CVS. Though I don't know, if ponie uses it
unaltered.
- Steve
leo
Jens Rieks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
[ rx.ops hints patch ]
Thanks, applied.
leo
On Mar 22, 2004, at 11:42 AM, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
* end is now inserted in @MAIN if missing
perhaps this should be a compiler warning instead?
-sterling
At 7:00 PM +0100 3/22/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since this has gotten to be an issue...
Making a continuation conceptually has three steps. One must:
1) Copy the current environment contents to the continuation
2) Note the bytecode address at which the
Sterling Hughes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mar 22, 2004, at 11:42 AM, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
* end is now inserted in @MAIN if missing
perhaps this should be a compiler warning instead?
If both C@MAIN and Cend are missing, we could compile a module. So
sometimes you'll get a warning and
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004, Butler, Gerald wrote:
The important point is that the starting language must have semantics which
treat variables, object, etc. as abstract entities to be manipulated not
*memory locations* to be accessed arbitrarily. Then, the parse stage must spit
This requirement
All~
If I recall correctly, GCC supports Haskell, which is an ideal language
for Parrot.
Matt
Simon Glover wrote:
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004, Butler, Gerald wrote:
The important point is that the starting language must have semantics which
treat variables, object, etc. as abstract entities to be
At 7:11 PM +0100 3/22/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Sterling Hughes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mar 22, 2004, at 11:42 AM, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
* end is now inserted in @MAIN if missing
perhaps this should be a compiler warning instead?
If both C@MAIN and Cend are missing, we could compile a
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... If we go with a one
frame stack chunk then we don't have to bother with COW-ing
*anything* with the stack.
BTW: which stacks: Register frames of course. What about Pad, User, and
Control?
leo
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 7:00 PM +0100 3/22/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
D'oh! (I should edit this all out but, well...) If we go with a one
frame stack chunk then we don't have to bother with COW-ing
*anything* with the stack. Which makes the differentiation between a
return
At 8:33 PM +0100 3/22/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 7:00 PM +0100 3/22/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
D'oh! (I should edit this all out but, well...) If we go with a one
frame stack chunk then we don't have to bother with COW-ing
*anything* with the stack.
Could you please give a little more insight on Haskell and why it
is/would be so good? I've never heard of it.
On Mon, 2004-03-22 at 14:23, Matt Fowles wrote:
All~
If I recall correctly, GCC supports Haskell, which is an ideal language
for Parrot.
Matt
Simon Glover wrote:
On Mon,
I can try, although I do not know Haskell very well.
Haskell is a functional language (like Scheme or ML), thus it needs
support for things like closures and continuations. This also means
that having an interpreter to provide higher level feature like
memoizing thunks is very useful.
Nick Ing-Simmons [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mark Sparshatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm not 100% certain about the details but I think this is how it works.
In languages like C++ objects and classes are completely seperate.
classes form an inheritance heirachy and objects are instances of a
Leopold Toetsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... If we go with a one
frame stack chunk then we don't have to bother with COW-ing
*anything* with the stack.
BTW: which stacks: Register frames of course. What about Pad, User, and
Control?
I hope he means
On 23/03/2004, at 6:23 AM, Matt Fowles wrote:
If I recall correctly, GCC supports Haskell, which is an ideal
language for Parrot.
GCC doesn't support Haskell -- perhaps the compiler you're thinking of
is GHC? (Glasgow Haskell Compiler).
I'm starting to look at implementing a Haskell to Parrot
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 12:53:57AM +, Piers Cawley wrote:
: Personally, I've always wished that Perl5 *had* done that. I've toyed
: with the idea of blessing Stashes, but never got around to actually
: implementing anything.
Well, hey, we had to leave something to fix in Perl 6.
What? Oh,
At 12:59 AM + 3/23/04, Piers Cawley wrote:
Leopold Toetsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... If we go with a one
frame stack chunk then we don't have to bother with COW-ing
*anything* with the stack.
BTW: which stacks: Register frames of course. What
I could be getting things mixed up here, but I thought I read that GHC
(Glasgow Haskell Compiler) is part of GCC (GNU Compiler Collection).
Although I might be misreading this paper slightly
http://home.in.tum.de/~baueran/thesis/
I would greatly support adding a Haskell compiler and would be
Parrot seems to be missing the bitwise-not for strings. Attached patch adds a
string_bitwise_not function, bitwise_nots vtable, and bnots ops.
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html?
All~
I am not sure that I understand why we deal with exception handlers at
all. Why not just make exception handlers a second continuation passed
to all functions. Then you call continuation 1 for successful returns
and continuation 2 for exceptions. This will not introduce overhead to
On 23/03/2004, at 12:24 PM, Matt Fowles wrote:
I could be getting things mixed up here, but I thought I read that GHC
(Glasgow Haskell Compiler) is part of GCC (GNU Compiler Collection).
Although I might be misreading this paper slightly
http://home.in.tum.de/~baueran/thesis/
GHC can
On Tue, 2004-03-16 at 11:57, Dan Sugalski wrote:
(I forgot to reply to this last week)
At 11:51 AM -0800 3/16/04, chromatic wrote:
Just to be sure, if Class Y inherits from Class X, is X on Y's does
list?
If class X does X, then yes. (I *really* should've picked better
names) Classes
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 12:59 AM + 3/23/04, Piers Cawley wrote:
Leopold Toetsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... If we go with a one
frame stack chunk then we don't have to bother with COW-ing
*anything* with the stack.
BTW:
With the patches of Jens it's no more far away to provide a Safe
run-core option. Still a lot todo, but...
1) Opcode classes
perl5 hasn't really many different: perldoc Opcode | grep ' :[a-z]*
- do we need base_loop? It's IMHO useless - turning off branching ops
will break any non-trivival
attached is a patch to add hints to the ops files.
Additionally to adding the hints it does:
*.ops:
- update the copyright year
object.ops:
- add unimplemented comment to singleton, removeattribute, adddoes,
removedoes
Thanks, applied.
leo
Goplat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Parrot seems to be missing the bitwise-not for strings. Attached patch adds a
string_bitwise_not function, bitwise_nots vtable, and bnots ops.
Thanks, applied.
leo
Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And what control stack? The continuation chain is the control stack, surely?
Nope. There's the exception handlers, at the very least.
Just add a field to the continuation structure NextExceptionHandler
which points
Arthur Bergman wrote:
This is Ponie, development release 2
How does one build this on Win32 with MSVC++?
Running the top-level perl Configure.pl got me nowhere, so I cd'd into
parrot and ran perl Configure.pl there. That ran OK, so I tried
nmake next.
It almost worked. The compiler
Steve Hay wrote:
Arthur Bergman wrote:
This is Ponie, development release 2
How does one build this on Win32 with MSVC++?
Running the top-level perl Configure.pl got me nowhere, so I cd'd into
parrot and ran perl Configure.pl there. That ran OK, so I tried
nmake next.
It almost
65 matches
Mail list logo
