On Sat, 6 Jan 2001 00:45:11 +, Simon Cozens wrote:
No, it's exactly what Perl 5 does.
This is the Perl interpreter:
while ((PL_op = CALL_FPTR(PL_op-op_ppaddr)(aTHX))) {
PERL_ASYNC_CHECK();
}
The only problem is that right now, PERL_ASYNC_CHECK doesn't actually
do anything.
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 11:39:11AM +0100, Bart Lateur wrote:
This is the Perl interpreter:
while ((PL_op = CALL_FPTR(PL_op-op_ppaddr)(aTHX))) {
PERL_ASYNC_CHECK();
}
The only problem is that right now, PERL_ASYNC_CHECK doesn't actually
do anything. :)
I don't get it.
But yes, I see no way to put perl solely under the GPL. That's just about
the worst thing we could do, aside from making perl non-"free."
This is now *way way* off topic for perl6-internals. A relevant issue for
perl6-internals had been whether we could or should rely on an LPGL
library
Simon Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Jan 05, 2001 at 11:42:32PM -0500, Uri Guttman wrote:
SC 5x slowdown.
not if you just check a flag in the main loop. you only check the event
system if you have pending events or signals, etc. the key is not
checking all events on each pass
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 01:02 PM 1/6/01 -0500, Uri Guttman wrote:
that is what i would expect form a simple flag test and every N tests
doing a full event poll. and even up to 5-10% slowdown i would think is
a good tradeoff for the flexibilty and ease of design win we get in the
Bart Lateur [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Apropos safe signals, isn't it possible to let perl6 handle avoiding
zombie processes internally? What use does having to do wait() yourself,
have anyway?
Valid point - perl could have a CHLD handler in C and stash away returned
status to pass to wait()
"NI" == Nick Ing-Simmons [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
NI Bart Lateur [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Apropos safe signals, isn't it possible to let perl6 handle avoiding
zombie processes internally? What use does having to do wait() yourself,
have anyway?
NI Valid point - perl could
This was the subject of a list and an RFC. I'd hope not to see what we
worked hard to come up with not go to waste, guys and gals. We came up
with a "least of all evils" solution, I think, and I feel very strongly
that not protecting Perl from outright theft, especially using very iffy
licenses
Good morning.
I've been thinking about defining atomic code units for a while, and I
even posted something about it to p5p a few years back. The idea has
matured since then, and I'd like to quickly outline it here:
I've been defining code atoms using three rules:
1. Atoms begin at branch
At 12:09 PM 1/6/01 -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
Some of this ground does need to be revisited, since perl 6 isn't going to
be perl 5, and the tradeoffs are going to be different. (I'm still not
sure
that checking for pending events every opcode is the way to go, either.
Piggybacking
10 matches
Mail list logo
