Status of PXS and some IMHO obsolete ops

2003-02-23 Thread Leopold Toetsch
As stated in the thread pxs help, the QT example can be expressed in terms of NCI. So IMHO the following opsen are obsolete: - loadext (unused) - callnative (only in QtHelloWorld.pasm, unimplemented) And further: - setline - setfile - setpackage which are already/ought to be in the PBC metadata.

Re: invoke

2003-02-23 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Steve Fink wrote: On Feb-22, Leopold Toetsch wrote: Yep. At least add Binvoke Px. Ok, done. Good. One minor note - and it is my fault to haven't documented that in the first place - I did revert all the other changes, they are necessary for pbc2c compiled code. Of course, it would be

Re: access to partial registers?

2003-02-23 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Tupshin Harper wrote: Is it possible and/or meaningful to read and write from a part of a register(e.g. a single word) in pasm? We have a very limited subset in dotgnu.ops. -Tupshin leo

Re: [RFC] imcc calling conventions

2003-02-23 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Benjamin Goldberg wrote: Dan Sugalski wrote: Yeah, 32 is a bunch. I've considered going with 16 on and off, and still might. 16 is not enough for non trivial subroutines. E.g. the _Generate sub in life.p6 consumes 25 P regs. Given that registers are allocated with the lower numbers being

Re: Status of PXS and some IMHO obsolete ops

2003-02-23 Thread gregor
Leo / Dan -- Have we allocated PASM or IMC directives to replace the setline, setfile, and setpackage ops? * .file name * .line [filename] line * .package name Should we have an indicator of the name of a sub, too? Regards, -- Gregor Leopold Toetsch [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Configure.pl --cgoto=0 doesn't work

2003-02-23 Thread Nicholas Clark
On Sat, Feb 22, 2003 at 12:31:09PM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote: Nicholas Clark wrote: On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 08:34:05AM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote: Case 2) should disable only core_ops_cg.c but not core_ops_cgp.c But surely we'd also like a flag to disable core_ops_cgp.c but leave

Re: Arrays, lists, referencing

2003-02-23 Thread Nicholas Clark
On Sun, Feb 23, 2003 at 11:12:18AM +1300, Martin D Kealey wrote: I would like to argue in favour of pass by value to be the default in the absence of some explicit prototype, because it allows greater type-safety, and because the opposite default interacts badly with out-of-order execution

Re: Arrays, lists, referencing

2003-02-23 Thread Luke Palmer
On Sun, Feb 23, 2003 at 11:12:18AM +1300, Martin D Kealey wrote: I would like to argue in favour of pass by value to be the default in the absence of some explicit prototype, because it allows greater type-safety, and because the opposite default interacts badly with out-of-order

Re: Configure.pl --cgoto=0 doesn't work

2003-02-23 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Nicholas Clark wrote: On Sat, Feb 22, 2003 at 12:31:09PM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote: It might just be that on someone's machine the faster and smaller core triggers a compiler bug. And When PBC code size matters we could have: CGoto you've already found a reason why someone might want the

Re: Using imcc as JIT optimizer

2003-02-23 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Dan Sugalski wrote: At 12:09 PM +0100 2/20/03, Leopold Toetsch wrote: Starting from the unbearable fact, that optimized compiled C is still faster then parrot -j (in primes.pasm), I did this experiment: - do register allocation for JIT in imcc - use the first N registers as MAPped processor

Re: Status of PXS and some IMHO obsolete ops

2003-02-23 Thread Leopold Toetsch
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Leo / Dan -- Have we allocated PASM or IMC directives to replace the setline, setfile, and setpackage ops? * .file name * .line [filename] line * .package name Should we have an indicator of the name of a sub, too? We don't need .file/.line, imcc knows

Re: access to partial registers?

2003-02-23 Thread Gopal V
If memory serves me right, Leopold Toetsch wrote: Is it possible and/or meaningful to read and write from a part of a register(e.g. a single word) in pasm? I always thought bitwise and and or were the things to use to modify partial content ?. Though I can't say if that makes sense because

Re: Configure.pl --cgoto=0 doesn't work

2003-02-23 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 2:33 PM +0100 2/23/03, Leopold Toetsch wrote: I forget who I'm misquoting, but good tools can be used in ways their makers never even thought of. Ok, ok, you have convinced me. Let's just select a default core set build according to the mentioned hierarchies and the possibility to build

Re: access to partial registers?

2003-02-23 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 6:54 PM -0800 2/22/03, Tupshin Harper wrote: Sorry for all the questions...these are the trials and tribulations of dealing with a newbie trying to get up to speed with the current state of parrot. So here's another question: Is it possible and/or meaningful to read and write from a part of

Re: Configure.pl --cgoto=0 doesn't work

2003-02-23 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Dan Sugalski wrote: At 2:33 PM +0100 2/23/03, Leopold Toetsch wrote: Ok, ok, you have convinced me. Let's just select a default core set build according to the mentioned hierarchies and the possibility to build every combination, if the user wants to. Cool. When we do that I'd like to look

Re: Configure.pl --cgoto=0 doesn't work

2003-02-23 Thread Nicholas Clark
On Sun, Feb 23, 2003 at 11:13:30AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote: Cool. When we do that I'd like to look at revamping the tinderbox system to run tests on all the core types. I know I'm asking a needless question (because I should be able to work it out from the source and the list archive) but

Re: Configure.pl --cgoto=0 doesn't work

2003-02-23 Thread Zach Lipton
On 2/23/03 10:25 AM, Leopold Toetsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [SNIP] While you say it tinderbox, currently the reports are really suboptimal. Some are red (stating not even parrot was built), but only have failing tests, sometimes the error reason is not show in the brief log, making it a

Re: invoke

2003-02-23 Thread Steve Fink
On Feb-23, Leopold Toetsch wrote: Good. One minor note - and it is my fault to haven't documented that in the first place - I did revert all the other changes, they are necessary for pbc2c compiled code. Of course, it would be better, to have another set of macros, that state: This

Re: access to partial registers?

2003-02-23 Thread Tupshin Harper
Dan Sugalski wrote: At 6:54 PM -0800 2/22/03, Tupshin Harper wrote: Sorry for all the questions...these are the trials and tribulations of dealing with a newbie trying to get up to speed with the current state of parrot. So here's another question: Is it possible and/or meaningful to read and

Re: invoke

2003-02-23 Thread Steve Fink
On Feb-22, Dan Sugalski wrote: At 10:20 AM -0800 2/20/03, Steve Fink wrote: The invoke op is bothering me -- namely, it disturbs me that it implicitly operates on P0. I know that P0 is the correct register to use according to pdd03, but I dislike having it be implicit. The user is required to

Re: Arrays, lists, referencing

2003-02-23 Thread Allison Randal
Luke wrote: If you want to modify a parameter in place, you declare with Cis rw. If you want to pass by-value, there might be a property for that, but I think this was recommended: sub foo($bar_) { my $bar = $bar_; # Copy, not bind # ... with $bar } In the

Re: Arrays, lists, referencing

2003-02-23 Thread Simon Cozens
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Allison Randal) writes: In the design meetings early this month we added Cis copy for true pass-by-value. Can someone please compile a list of all the is foo properties that have been suggested/accepted as being pre-defined by the language? I can't keep track of them all. --