Brent Dax wrote:
Dan Sugalski:
# ... Later the
# ancillary routine may be nonexistant if we build up the function
# headers on the fly and embed the destination function into them.
Oh JITters... ;^)
jit/i386 has already code to call (specific) functions e.g. vtable funcs
or
# New Ticket Created by Leon Brocard
# Please include the string: [perl #18565]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=18565
A minor change to aid debugging.
(To be honest, it would be wonderful if
# New Ticket Created by Leon Brocard
# Please include the string: [perl #18566]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=18566
I've posted a Brainfuck interpreter on list in the past, but it kept
on getting
On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
A bit more ... In particular, on Solaris, I've been able to track down
one way of triggering the the t/op/lexicals.t failure to list.c. If I
compile list.c without any optimization, the test passes. If I compile
just the list_new function in
At 9:12 AM +0100 11/21/02, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Brent Dax wrote:
Dan Sugalski:
# ... Later the # ancillary routine may be nonexistant if we build
up the function # headers on the fly and embed the destination
function into them.
Oh JITters... ;^)
jit/i386 has already code to call
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 10:28:42AM -0500, Andy Dougherty wrote:
+#ifdef HAS_HEADER_SETJMP
+jmp_buf env;
+
+/* this should put registers in env, which then get marked in
+ * trace_system_stack below
+ */
+setjmp(env);
+#endif
Alas, no, though it seems to me
On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 9:53 AM -0500 11/21/02, Jason Gloudon wrote:
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 08:34:04AM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
My patch in 16237 has the code to flush register windows on v8 and
older and v9
(64-bit) SPARC systems, which is what one is really
At 10:17 PM +0530 11/21/02, Gopal V wrote:
If memory serves me right, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Currently open is the situation of flags and such from more complex
calls. (Like what we do if we get back a pointer that's getting
stuffed into a PMC--do we set the type, if so what type, and what do
If memory serves me right, Dan Sugalski wrote:
I do actually like it. I was shooting for simplicity with the
assumption that, since we were calling out to non-parrot-aware code,
all bets were off with respect to type safety. If you load in
libgtk.so and call functions dynamically there's
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 11:59:36AM -0500, Andy Dougherty wrote:
While compiling, I did get the warnings:
cpu_dep.c, line 24: warning: initializer does not fit or is out of
range: 0x91d02003
cpu_dep.c, line 26: warning: initializer does not fit or is out of
range: 0x81c3e008
That in itself
The Perl 6 Summary for the week ending 20021117
Oh! my ears and whiskers, I'm late!
It's 0650, it's 20021120 and I've only just started writing the summary.
Call me lazy, call me a shirker, call me anything you damn well please,
just don't interrupt me while I'm writing this.
11 matches
Mail list logo