.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
#24a935c5c2c71aa8http://groups-beta.google.com/group/perl.perl6.internals/browse_frm/thread/86466b906c8e6e10/24a935c5c2c71aa8#24a935c5c2c71aa8
where Dan Sugalski says: I'd just pitch an exception if code
deletes an entry ...
Perhaps this is OK, because this code is intended for internal use
only. But people
happy in parrot land. And no, you
generally didn't see it. And no, it has nothing to do with Larry. And
no, I'm not going to go into it here -- this isn't the place for it.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski
At 8:14 PM -0400 6/3/05, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 02:55:52PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Dan was expecting sane defaults, that is when I do addition with two
PMCs that haven't otherwise said they behave specially that the
floating point values of the two PMCs
At 9:23 AM +0200 6/3/05, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I sync'd up with subversion this afternoon, and I'm finding that a
*lot* of things that used to work for me are now breaking really
badly. Specifically where there used to be sane fallbacks for pretty
much
At 2:50 PM +0200 6/3/05, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Right, so to reduce code duplication you remove stuff that's
working so people have to go reimplement the code. That makes
*perfect* sense.
I've announced and summarized all these changes, e.g.
http://xrl.us/gayp on Apr
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
)
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
and simple enough to be
reasonably auditable)
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
the code in
the interface generator looks like.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears
At 4:35 PM -0400 5/20/05, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
On Fri, 20 May 2005, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Well, mostly. string-cstring conversion is potentially lossy, if
for no other reason than embedded nulls will get in your way. I see
we're not exposing anything to do that, though, which we ought to
fix
in some docs to that effect, but apparently not. :(
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
that, which is fine. Parrot, because of what it is,
*is* in a position to do so, so we did.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
At 11:12 PM -0400 4/29/05, Bob Rogers wrote:
From: Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 15:23:47 -0400
At 10:55 PM -0400 4/28/05, Bob Rogers wrote:
From: Robin Redeker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm astounded. Do neither of you ever design data structures
At 7:50 PM +0200 4/30/05, Robin Redeker wrote:
Hi!
Just a small question:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 04:37:21PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
If you don't have the destroy, and don't tag the object as needing
expedited cleanup, then the finalizer *will* still be called. You
just don't have any
At 9:19 AM +0200 4/30/05, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... We should probably make it 'safe' by forcing the
destroyed PMC to be an Undef after destruction, in case something was
still referring to it.
That sounds sane. Or maybe be: convert to an Undef and put
was
still referring to it.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears
this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
to the number of live objects.
It's definitely possible to work up degenerate examples for both
refcount and tracing systems that show them in a horribly bad light
relative to the other, but in the general case the tracing schemes
are significantly less expensive.
From: Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED
At 5:57 PM +0200 4/28/05, Robin Redeker wrote:
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 03:43:32PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 5:40 PM +0200 4/27/05, Robin Redeker wrote:
Just for the curious me: What was the design decision behind the GC
solution? Was refcounting that bad? Refcounting gives a more global
At 12:12 AM +0200 4/28/05, Robin Redeker wrote:
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 12:33:30PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
Dan Sugalski writes:
Also, with all this stuff, people are going to find timely destruction
is less useful than they might want, what with threads and
continuations, which'll screw
even if there
are outstanding references, which is likely the wrong thing to do.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
isn't feasible.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 10:03 PM -0400 4/13/05, Michael Walter wrote:
Dan,
On 4/13/05, Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All security is done on a per-interpreter basis. (really on a
per-thread basis, but since we're one-thread per interpreter it's
essentially the same thing)
Just to get me back on track: Does
At 2:05 PM -0400 4/13/05, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 12:05 PM +0200 4/13/05, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
As of rev 7824 Parrot *should* run with NUM_REGISTERS defined as 64
too. Only some stack tests are failing that do half frame push and
pop tests.
imcc/t/reg/spill_2 just spills 4 registers instead
At 3:53 PM +0200 4/14/05, Jens Rieks wrote:
On Thursday 14 April 2005 15:33, Dan Sugalski wrote:
(If the CVS repository's not up to date I
can see about getting subversion installed and working)
Yes, the CVS repository is not updated anymore.
Swell -- I thought when we were switching over
At 10:44 AM -0400 4/14/05, Aaron Sherman wrote:
On Thu, 2005-04-14 at 09:11, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 10:03 PM -0400 4/13/05, Michael Walter wrote:
On 4/13/05, Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All security is done on a per-interpreter basis. (really on a
per-thread basis, but since
At 5:51 PM -0400 4/13/05, Aaron Sherman wrote:
On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 17:01, Dan Sugalski wrote:
So here's what I was thinking of for Parrot's security and quota
model. (Note that none of this is actually *implemented* yet...)
[...]
It's actually pretty straightforward, the hard part being
At 9:51 AM -0700 4/14/05, Dave Whipp wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
All security is done on a per-interpreter basis. (really on a
per-thread basis, but since we're one-thread per interpreter it's
essentially the same thing)
...
* Number of open files
* IO operations/sec
* IO operations
At 4:42 PM +0200 4/14/05, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 3:53 PM +0200 4/14/05, Jens Rieks wrote:
Yes, the CVS repository is not updated anymore.
Swell
You need just this part:
Date: Wed Apr 13 03:04:41 2005
New Revision: 7824
Modified:
trunk/imcc
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
of your big subroutines and
report compile times and functionality.
Sure. I'll sync up and give it a shot.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED
. Luckily there are plans for
one. :)
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
by
using facilities the OS provides (which makes the
job easier) but it doesn't have to -- it can and
will do it with no OS help if need be.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED
, but history shows that people who invent
their own security system invent ones that suck, so that looks like
something worth avoiding)
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL
At 12:27 PM -0500 3/22/05, MrJoltCola wrote:
At 06:55 PM 3/21/2005, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
According to Dan Sugalski:
As such, I'd like to say a big thanks to Chip Salzenburg who's agreed
to take the hat.
I thank you for your kind words, and for giving me the opportunity
again to work long hours
it,
really)
Anyway, any sort of OS-independence should live
on top of the low-level interface, and would be a
reasonable thing to put in a library.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED
, but that's all a separate thing)
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
, with a dash denoting
positions whose types are ignored for purposes of MMD lookup.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 12:50 PM -0800 3/21/05, chromatic wrote:
On Mon, 2005-03-21 at 15:39 -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
And, to forestall some of the wave of questions and off-list
grumbling: The FAQ!
Q: Is there any way to talk you into continuing to design, or at least
describing, the long-awaited security model
At 5:04 PM -0500 1/18/05, Sam Ruby wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Hi folks.
Welcome back!
Parrot's got the interesting, and somewhat unfortunate, requirement
of having to allow all subroutines behave as methods and all
methods behave as subroutines. (This is a perl 5 thing, but we have
to make
At 1:50 PM -0500 1/19/05, Matt Diephouse wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:09:19 -0500, Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Good point--we should. That'd mean we'd want to have three sets of
data: the invoked full/base name, the 'program' full/base name, and
the interpreter full/base name
either associated .pasm with parrot, or foo.pasm started
#! /usr/bin/parrot (which is legal :) then you'd get a fullname of
~/src/foo.pasm and a basename of foo.
Clear and sensible?
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan
At 4:02 PM + 1/19/05, Nicholas Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 10:54:53AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
parrot. If, on the other hand, we were invoked as:
parrot foo.pbc
then both fullname and basename would be parrot. Unix hashbang (and
Windows file association) invocation may give
after this goes out, but there you go :)
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get
At 10:56 AM +0100 12/21/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski (via RT) wrote:
You'll note that N5 is set to 22253 when the returncc's done, but
after the return the value is -21814.6. Looks like something's
stomping the N registers.
The program below shows exactly the same behavior WRT
to be a good generic destination, as it
morphs to most destination types on assign)
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
At 9:31 AM + 12/15/04, Leopold Toetsch via RT wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Or not. (I've got too many versions of parrot around at the moment) I
see this bug happening against yesterday morning's parrot.
imcc/CVS/Entries shows a date of Mon Dec 13 12:19:33 2004 for reg_alloc.c.
I still can't
At 11:13 AM +0100 12/14/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
subclass - To create a subclass of a class object
Is existing and used.
Right. I was listing the things we need in the protocol. Some of them
we've got, some we don't, and some of the stuff we have we
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 8:07 AM +0100 12/10/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... A scope exit
action is put in place on the control stack with:
pushaction Psub
* What is the intended usage of the action handler?
* Specifically is this also ment for lazy DOD runs?
* How
At 10:19 AM +0100 12/14/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 8:07 AM +0100 12/10/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
* What is the intended usage of the action handler?
* Specifically is this also ment for lazy DOD runs?
* How is the relationship to the Cpop_pad opcode
At 9:08 AM + 12/14/04, Leopold Toetsch via RT wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IMCC's doing odd things when moving PMCs into the appropriate spot
when calling into functions with a large number of parameters. Here's
a snip from a trace of one of the programs running. Note
At 8:48 AM -0500 12/14/04, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 9:08 AM + 12/14/04, Leopold Toetsch via RT wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IMCC's doing odd things when moving PMCs into the appropriate spot
when calling into functions with a large number of parameters. Here's
a snip from
At 3:31 PM +0100 12/14/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 10:19 AM +0100 12/14/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Which does argue that it ought not be a sub, I suppose, but something
simpler. A plain bsr sort of thing.
A bsr doesn't change anything. It has to return
.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
to
have it provide optional typechecking while we're at it)
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
At 12:06 AM -0800 12/1/04, Jeff Clites wrote:
On Nov 30, 2004, at 11:45 AM, Dan Sugalski wrote:
In this example:
% cat continuation6.ruby
def strange
callcc {|continuation| $saved = continuation}
end
def outer
a = 0
strange()
a = a + 1
print a = , a, \n
end
Through the joys
At 10:12 PM -0800 11/30/04, Bill Coffman wrote:
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 14:45:39 -0500, Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 11:20 AM -0800 11/30/04, Jeff Clites wrote:
% cat continuation6.ruby
def strange
callcc {|continuation| $saved = continuation}
end
def outer
a = 0
want it to, no big deal.
PMCs are in complete control on assignment, so you can have all the
strong types check to see what they're handed and pitch a fit at
runtime if it's wrong.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski
be an interesting thing. (I've pondered, more than once,
Prolog for parrot :)
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
of pressure of the register allocator, but...
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
our classes?
Do we have to mangle those ourselves, or is there a way to put a class
in a namespace?
This is turning out to be a more complex issue. Namespaces might not
be the right answer here.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski
At 9:36 AM -0500 11/30/04, Matt Fowles wrote:
Dan~
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 08:28:35 -0500, Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 1:45 AM -0800 11/29/04, Jeff Clites wrote:
On Nov 28, 2004, at 2:48 AM, Piers Cawley wrote:
I just thought of a heuristic that might help with register
preservation
proposing tossing the pads and going with a variable-sized register
frame, yes?
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
At 10:10 AM -0500 11/30/04, Matt Fowles wrote:
Dan~
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 09:49:54 -0500, Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 9:36 AM -0500 11/30/04, Matt Fowles wrote:
Dan~
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 08:28:35 -0500, Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 1:45 AM -0800 11/29/04, Jeff
At 5:30 PM +0100 11/30/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 9:15 PM +0100 11/23/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Below inline/attached are some thoughts WRT the subject.
leo
Lexicals, continuations, and register allocation
1) Recent discussions have shown that we
[Snip]
This is interesting. After we're functionally complete we can revisit it.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy
At 10:15 AM -0800 11/30/04, Jeff Clites wrote:
On Nov 30, 2004, at 5:28 AM, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 1:45 AM -0800 11/29/04, Jeff Clites wrote:
On Nov 28, 2004, at 2:48 AM, Piers Cawley wrote:
I just thought of a heuristic that might help with register
preservation:
A variable/register should
At 7:20 PM +0100 11/30/04, Thomas Seiler wrote:
At Tue 30 Nov 6:22pm, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Architecture changes aren't an option we're entertaining until after we're
functionally complete.
Just would like to ask a related question:
Is a change that invalidates an existing precompiled bytecode
At 11:20 AM -0800 11/30/04, Jeff Clites wrote:
On Nov 30, 2004, at 10:27 AM, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 10:15 AM -0800 11/30/04, Jeff Clites wrote:
None of this should have anything to do with return continuations
specifically, since this is the case where the body of foo (or
something called from
this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
.
Please just use the eof method of the PIO object:
$I0 = $P0.eof()
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
At 8:29 AM +0100 11/28/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Thomas Seiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 10:34 AM +0100 11/27/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
See also subject Too many opcodes.
[...]
Could you undo this please? Now is not the time to be trimming ops out.
When
this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
,
but I didn't -- there's a longish message that came after this one
explaining what needs to be done.
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 20:25:48 -0500, Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 8:29 AM +0100 11/28/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Thomas Seiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 10
At 8:46 PM -0500 11/29/04, Dan Sugalski wrote:
It requires being somewhat careful with what ops we put *in*.
And since I wasn't clear (This stuff always obviously makes little
sense only after I send things...), I meant in the switch/cgoto/jit
core loop, not what ops are actually ops.
--
Dan
much appreciate it.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
be cool... :)
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
to release, if we choose to do it
at all.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get
At 11:35 AM +0100 11/17/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Okay. I'll apply it and take a shot. May take a few hours to get a
real number.
How does it look like? Any results already?
Okay, got some time this morning. Two of the patch hunks were already
in, so I skipped 'em
At 3:54 PM +0100 11/23/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
The parrot I have, which is a day or two out of date, takes 7m to
churn through one of my pir files. With this patch, I killed the
run at 19.5 minutes.
Sh... That's one of the smaller ones I presume.
Nope, one of the biggest
At 4:02 PM +0100 11/23/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
The parrot I have, which is a day or two out of date, takes 7m to
churn through one of my pir files. With this patch, I killed the
run at 19.5 minutes.
One more note: be sure to compile Parrot optimized - the new
reg_alloc.c
.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 5:40 PM +0100 11/23/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can't. My dev machine's running gcc 2.95.4, and gcc throws lisp
error messages compiling the switch core if I turn on optimizations.
You could try:
- perl Configure.pl --optimize
- make -s
- wait a bit
, if you don't have that patch, then back to the drawing board.
~Bill
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 11:55:47 -0500, Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 5:40 PM +0100 11/23/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
*But*, I've looked again at the new reg_alloc.c code. It seems to have a
piece of code with qubic order
At 12:27 PM -0500 11/23/04, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 9:17 AM -0800 11/23/04, Bill Coffman wrote:
Wait, I just thought of a huge change.
Dan, Does the patch you have implement Leo's U_NON_VOLATILE patch?
It was the patch originally attached to this ticket, over a stock
parrot from CVS. If there's
1 - 100 of 3756 matches
Mail list logo
