.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
#24a935c5c2c71aa8http://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 for internal use
only. But people
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
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski
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 PMCs
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 fallbacks for pretty
much
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/gayp on Apr
--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
at the moment)
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get
.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
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
)
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
and simple enough to be
reasonably auditable)
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
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
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 to
fix
in some docs to that effect, but apparently not. :(
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
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---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
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 design data structures
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't have any
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 to an Undef and put
was
still referring to it.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears
this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
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 Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED
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 global
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, which'll screw
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 bears and even
isn't feasible.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
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
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
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 me back on track: Does
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
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 over
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
per-thread basis, but since
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 part being
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 operations
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:
trunk/imcc
--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 PROTECTED
. 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
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
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 even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED
, but history shows that people who invent
their own security system invent ones that suck, so that looks like
something worth avoiding)
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL
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 long hours
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---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED
, 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
this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
, 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] have teddy bears and even
this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
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
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 make
either associated .pasm with parrot, or foo.pasm started
#! /usr/bin/parrot (which is legal :) then you'd get a fullname of
~/src/foo.pasm and a basename of foo.
Clear and sensible?
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan
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 association) invocation may give
after this goes out, but there you go :)
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get
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 same behavior WRT
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] have teddy bears and even
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's
a snip from
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 stuff we have we
--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
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 Cpop_pad opcode
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 running. Note
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 has to return
.
--
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
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 be trimming ops out.
When
this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
be cool... :)
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
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
teddy bears get
At 4:02 PM +0100 11/23/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski 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.
One more note: be sure to compile Parrot optimized - the new
reg_alloc.c
and perl 6
stories on slashdot, at 0, so if I don't actually have to do so,
well... so much the better usually. :)
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy
At 10:28 AM +0100 11/22/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 9:59 AM +0100 11/19/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Its in and named Creturncc since yesterday return with current
continuation.
Hrm. The name's not right,
I've proposed ret_cc and returncc, about two weeks
At 9:59 AM +0100 11/19/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The 'invoke the current return continuation' op apparently got lost
in the blowup. That needs to go in.
Its in and named Creturncc since yesterday return with current
continuation.
Hrm. The name's not right
understand the
policies and abide by them. TPF is working up Real Paperwork for
contributors so we can have everything official and as lawyer-proof
as we can manage.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even
At 10:03 AM +0100 11/19/04, Miroslav Silovic wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
It's also important for people writing these things to take into
account the possibility that their exit actions may potentially be
triggered multiple times, courtesy of the joys of continuations.
Hmm, the first thing
At 10:58 PM + 11/18/04, Tim Bunce wrote:
On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 at 11:37:54AM -0800, chromatic wrote:
On Thu, 2004-11-18 at 13:36 -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
I'd like pushing exception handlers to remain simple -- the current
system is almost OK. What I'd like it to change
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
still got the
string stuff outstanding, and I promised Sam Ruby I'd deal with
classes and metaclasses next.
So much time, so little to do. No, wait, that's not right...
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski
At 7:26 AM -0700 11/19/04, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2004 at 09:05:31AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 7:00 AM -0700 11/19/04, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
One of the areas where we can definitely use assistance is
in porting and testing p6ge in operating environments different
be good.
This should be relatively simple, so have at it. :)
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
At 10:58 AM -0500 11/19/04, Andy Dougherty wrote:
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004, Dan Sugalski wrote:
So, if someone'd like to take a shot at thumping the template
makefile bits to add in compilers/p6ge to the basic build, that'd be
great. Grovelling over the code in there to scrub out portability
issues
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 8:26 AM +0100 11/18/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Exceptions and continuations should be the same problem -- the target
is the start of a basic block. (Well, more than that, as they're
places where calling conventions potentially kick in) This means
actions may potentially be
triggered multiple times, courtesy of the joys of continuations.
So. Simple, right? Make sense to everyone? (You may all commence
ripping this to shreds...)
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
than a pad or namespace.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 11:35 AM +0100 11/17/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Okay. I'll apply it and take a shot. May take a few hours to get a
real number.
How does it look like? Any results already?
Nope, haven't had time, unfortunately. Work's been busy. Today, if I get
lucky
are free for allocation, regardless.
I've included P3 (see below). If it's used it interfers.
Nope. It'll either be set if a call returns overflow parameters, or
unused and thus garbage.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski
At 10:12 PM +0100 11/17/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 7:34 PM +0100 11/17/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
All registers are preserved, but some of these registers are used,
either by implict opcodes or as return values.
Erm, no. Unused registers in the 0-15
At 10:03 PM +0100 11/17/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
[ this came up WRT calling conventions ]
I assume he's doing bsr/ret to get into and out of the sub, which
is going to be significantly faster.
Who says that?
As already stated, I don't consider these as either light-weight
it'll be
significantly faster since it, by definition, has a lot less work to
do.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
At 5:08 PM -0500 11/17/04, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Chopping out the multiplication (since that's a not-insignificant
amount of the runtime for the bsr/ret version) gives:
PIR:
real0m3.016s
user0m2.990s
sys 0m0.030s
bsr/ret
real0m0.344s
user0m0.340s
sys 0m0.010s
and with -Oc
starts a new block, as does
the start of an exception handler. (And I've got some docs on
exceptions that should be out later tonight)
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED
don't give a damn if you don't like it. Cope.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 4:49 PM +0100 11/16/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
What part of This stuff isn't going to change hasn't been clear?
Your sentence below answering Matt's question about dismissing my
arguments lightly?
There is quite a difference between not change. Period and not change now
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
1 - 100 of 4345 matches
Mail list logo
