Re: [PATCH] Getting ICU to build on OS X

Please also send a copy of this to the ICU developers. (See the ICU website/documentation.) We need to try and make as few changes as possible to ICU, or it will become a _nightmare_ to maintain. By making sure our local changes get sent upstreadm it will keep our life simpler in the future.

RE: Status of IMCC Examples & A Win32 API Call Example

Cool, can I write my software with it now? ;) >> BTW, tonight I managed to get Parrot to call a few Win32 APIs successfully >> using NCI (not that it won't have been done before, but it was the first time for me... ;-)). I've attached an example that shows how to call the MessageBoxA function. N

Re: Pondering parameterized operators

Eirik Berg Hanssen writes: > Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > You shouldn't parse the right hand side yourself. That fixes the > > issue. > > I was not aware of this option. A6/E6 gave me the impression that > C would override the default parsing of the RHS, not > merely augment

Status of IMCC Examples & A Win32 API Call Example

Hi, Went to look in languages/imcc/examples the other day and noticed there were only a few examples in there, and that sample.imc doesn't even work. Is there a reason for a lack of examples or should I have a crack at writing some? BTW, tonight I managed to get Parrot to call a few Win32 APIs s

Re: IMCC parsing weirdness

On Sep-28, Steve Fink wrote: > > I've attached a diff to languages/imcc/t/syn/pcc.t, but I'm not sure > if that's the right place for the test. Oops. Except CVS is being very flaky right now, so the patch hadn't been written to the file before I sent it. Oh well. I'm committing a fix for the bug

IMCC parsing weirdness

I am getting strange behavior from IMCC if the first line after .pcc_sub is a comment. It seems to misinterpret things and ends up emitting a restore_p op that triggers a "No entries on UserStack!" exception. I've attached a diff to languages/imcc/t/syn/pcc.t, but I'm not sure if that's the right

Re: Pondering argument passing

On Sep-28, Leopold Toetsch wrote: > Steve Fink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I'm not sure IMCC is going to be able to autogenerate the prototyped > > and nonprototyped versions of the callee's entry code from the same > > set of .param declarations. > > This is currently implemented as the "un

Disassembler issues and URM

Hi, I've been playing with Parrot for the last two days trying to get the disassembler working, but I was not very successful. As I mentioned earlier in my patch email there were some issues in the debug.c file due to some uninitialized variables. The second SEGFAULT I get happens due to some stra

Re: Pondering parameterized operators

Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Cool stuff. In my usual pedantic sort of way, I'll go through the > message and fix everything you said. For educational purposes only, of > course :-) Thanks :-) For further education, some more questions/comments, if I may: > # Let's say C

Re: Pondering parameterized operators

Simon Cozens writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luke Palmer) writes: > > [$lhs, $rhs]脱\220\215.脱\235\237compile; > > What's that in old money? Eep. I thought I had mutt's utf-8 working, but apparently not. Does anyone who knows about these things want to mail me instructions, or something? That'd be

Re: cvs commit: parrot/classes orderedhash.pmc pmc2c.pl unmanagedstruct.pmc

Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [ unmanagedstruct.pmc ] > +INTVAL set_integer(INTVAL value) { Managed struct does use this vtable (set_integer_native) to set the size. Anyway: Do you have any specs for these two classes. How do we handle structs? What are the mentioned triples for

Re: Q: vtable - can, isa, does

Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The full explanation is: > can - checks to see if an object can perform a specific, single > method. (A parent class may provide them) > isa - checks to see if the named class is in the inheritance > hierarchy for the object > does - checks to see if the

Re: Pondering argument passing

Steve Fink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > With it, I've been able to get a bit farther. Found a minor bug where > it multiply defines a label if you make two calls. Oh well, allways these nasty complicate programs, that want to call a sub twice :) Fixed, thanks. > I'm not sure IMCC is going to be

Re: Pondering argument passing

On Sep-26, Leopold Toetsch wrote: > Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [ splatted function args ] > > > ... For this, I think we're > > going to need a "setp Ix, Py" op which does indirect register addressing. > > Done. Cool, thanks! With it, I've been able to get a bit farther. Found

Re: Pondering parameterized operators

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luke Palmer) writes: > [$lhs, $rhs]æ\220\215.æ\235\237compile; What's that in old money? -- As the saying goes, if you give a man a fish, he eats for a day. If you teach him to grep for fish, he'll leave you alone all weekend. If you encourage him to beg for fish, pretty soon

Re: Pondering parameterized operators

"Austin Hastings" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [Eirik wrote:] > > Let us see ... somewhat speculative and probably short-of-the-mark > > generalization coming up: > > > > > > macro infix:[ ($lhs, $op, $rhs) > > is parsed(/() \] ()/) { > > return { > > $op($lhs, $rhs) > > };