On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 7:53 AM, Will Coleda <[email protected]> wrote: > We've been saying for years now that users shouldn't use PASM, but PIR > (and lately, a push to NQP or winxed instead of PIR). Are any of our > users currently using PASM? > > Moritz, JimmyZ, Whiteknight, and I are investigating what a parrot > without PASM looks like in the coke/rm_pasm branch. > > So far for this branch: > > * parrot will no longer try to parse foo.pasm as a PASM file. > * t/ tests that happen to use PASM are being rewritten in PIR > * t/ tests that test PASM itself are being dropped > * generated constant files are now PIR instead of PASM - drop in > replacement except for s/.pasm/.pir/ > * some doc updates > > Still to come: > * more work to be done updating t/ > * more doc updates > * convert/drop any remaining .pasm files > * remove PASM compiler from IMCC > > > -- > Will "Coke" Coleda
All test files but one now pass in the branch - much thanks to JimmyZ and moritz and whiteknight for their tuits. t/pmc/packfileconstanttable.t not ok 16 - First entry in constant table is a sub # Have: FixedIntegerArray # Want: Sub Any eyes on that would be helpful. I'm not sure if the test itself makes sense in a non-PASM world. IMCC internals still know how to parse PASM - we need to remove that - whiteknight has a version of this in his branch, but it broke parrot's bundled nqp, so we might need something a little less aggressive there. I'm going to start on this next. Any feedback? Is something we can merge? -- Will "Coke" Coleda _______________________________________________ http://lists.parrot.org/mailman/listinfo/parrot-dev
