On Sat, Apr 28, 2012, at 12:57, Jimmy Zhuo wrote: > > Thanks for the comments Jimmy. > > > I know that the length assumption about the constants is bad, but > > there's currently no specced way to differentiate, so I decided to > > stick with the old implementation until we pick a new one. > > > As for the PC, the spec needs to describe how the PC gets > > incremented so that tests like the poke_caller tests which > > manipulate PC explicitly work correctly. Before I started working on > > m0, the perl implementation incremented by 1 and the c by 4. This > > means that they both couldn't pass the same poke_caller test. So I > > changed the c implementation to increment PC by one on each > > iteration of the run loop. Then I updated the spec to explicitly > > state that. I think this is the way to go. If not, the spec needs to > > explicitly say increment by 4 and we need to fix the perl > > implementation and poke_caller test. > > I agree with you, but who updates spec, who will continue > designing M0. > > Jimmy Zhuo
Your gentle hinting is well-taken. I'll be merging changes, filling in holes in the spec that you both have been kind enough to find and generally getting this thing moving forward again as soon as I can get enough irc time with you and nbrown to make sure I fully understand what you both have been doing. Thanks, Christoph _______________________________________________ http://lists.parrot.org/mailman/listinfo/parrot-dev
