of the removed call types.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
5c2c71aa8#24a935c5c2c71aa8>http://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 f
o, things weren't particularly 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
------
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 PMC
Dan
--it's like this-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
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/ga
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 fall
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
perties and
attributes.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
s early and my memory's not
cooperating at the moment)
--
Dan
----------it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
d still handling the more legacy
one-dimensional aggregates of references scheme that, say, perl 5
uses.
--
Dan
--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
arrot can't find 'em)
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
d really like it fast and simple enough to be
reasonably auditable)
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
thing -- in principle it's not that tough (Hey, I did
one, I get to say that :) though that does depend on what 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 get drunk
ought to fix.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
sequences.
I thought I'd put in some docs to that effect, but apparently not. :(
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
u can reduce
the uncertainty you get a speed boost. A lot of programs aren't in a
position to do 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--
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
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&
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 desi
onal 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
7;s set up.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
n, in case something was
still referring to it.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
acing system *isn't*. That'd require changing
the entire source base, and just isn't feasible.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
the object 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
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,
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
now, though I
think it's in there for perl 6. I doubt the python, ruby, Lisp, or
Tcl compilers will emit the cleanup-at-block-boundary sweep code.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
dea.
--
Dan
--it's like this-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
n
entry in the MMD table.
--
Dan
------it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
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:
>t
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
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
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
>>
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 ov
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 of
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
rimitive, and I don't think it's the one to take.
(We could invent our own, but history shows that people who invent
their own security system invent ones that suck, so that looks like
something worth avoiding)
--
Dan
arantees it makes. Now, it may make them 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
. 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
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
be parrot) if you
want it to work.
--
Dan
------it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
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
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
m just
*tired*. Definitely a sign it's time to pass the hat and get out of
the way.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
re the @MULTI() carries the signature, 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]
n
------it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
since namespaces are
supposed to be lexically and dynamically overridable, as well as
layered, 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
han quick
filename munging that I'm not sure it's worth 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
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 ma
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 interp
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 associa
le?
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
doesn't feel like adding invoke_method to the mix
will get us anywhere.
Anyway, there we go. (I fully expect to find that both topics are
dead about an hour after this goes out, but there you go :)
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Suga
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 sa
t's Undef
is generally clever enough 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]
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 s
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
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 ha
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'
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 r
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 C opcode?
is. Hopefully things'll clear up soon and we can
start juggling more balls.
--
Dan
--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
;ve hit release and start seeing widespread
use.
--
Dan
------it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
to address them,
once we're functionally complete. Getting functionally complete
should be our current overriding goal.
(And for those who've noted that this is somewhat different than my
normal postings, well... this is what happens when you get someone
competent in the use of
rd. That'd be an interesting thing. (I've pondered, more than once,
Prolog for parrot :)
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ut once it gets a type
it *keeps* that type) or a weakly statically typed language, like C,
where you *must* give types at compile time to everything but can
like left and right about it at runtime.
(And thus endeth the rant :)
Anyway, Parrot'll do strong typing if you want it to, no big deal
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
>
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"
ameters into the right spots, and we probably ought to
have it provide optional typechecking while we're at it)
--
Dan
------it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL
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
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 precompil
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 be
[Snip]
This is interesting. After we're functionally complete we can revisit it.
--
Dan
--it's like this-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
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 t
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:
>&
ll from lexicals - drawback execution time
Before I comment on this one, I want to double-check -- you're
proposing tossing the pads and going with a variable-sized register
frame, yes?
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan
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
more complex issue. Namespaces might not
be the right answer here.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
op:
add lexbase[1], lexbase[2], lexbase[3]
and take a lot of pressure of the register allocator, but...
--
Dan
------it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samu
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
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.
--
ad I taken things in front-to-back order,
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:
>Thoma
st isn't any need for there to be a difference between opcode
functions and library functions.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
em in.
--
Dan
--it's like this-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
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
ode which checks for end of file.
Please just use the "eof" method of the PIO object:
> $I0 = $P0."eof"()
--
Dan
------it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EM
not feeling clever enough to see how
without having a relatively costly double lookup on every method call
(first to see if there's a registered MMD method for the named
method, then the regular dispatch if there's not) so I'm not sure we
will. Efficient MMD wins, if we can make it look like
perl/python/ruby/tcl's method lookup rules are in force, even if they
really aren't under the hood.
--
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
that later, closer 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
uld bootstrap
itself pretty nicely. That'd be cool... :)
--
Dan
------it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
give it a whirl I'd much appreciate it.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
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 th
lling.
Well, 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
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
At 8:25 AM -0800 11/23/04, Bill Coffman wrote:
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 09:27:12 -0500, Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
I'd be in
" will show you
the call stack at the time things died.
--
Dan
------it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
1 - 100 of 4461 matches
Mail list logo
