Folks,
JIT work's definitely proceeding in earnest and lots of interesting things
are happening. (We can definitely use help from folks on non-x86 platforms)
A word of warning, though--GCC 2.96 (which didn't really exist, but Red Hat
shipped) really dislikes it. If you find your trials fail
At 04:41 PM 12/29/2001 -0500, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
Until David Mitchell gets them online, we'll stick with obvious
things, like line lengths. I, for the most part, left strings alone
('cause I''ll be anal with them separately), as well as some of the files.
Cool, thanks. Did we give
On Wed, Nov 07, 2001 at 05:15:14PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
*) The program is fully parsed
*) There are no string eval, do, or requires
*) There are no symbolic references on the LHS of any assignment
*) There is no use of MY within the block or in any subs
First, I want to apologize for the size of this patch. I normally try to
make bite size changes but this one just touched too many things. I still
have a few enhancements to make but wanted to get this in before anyone else
started hacking on the same pieces.
This patch had a number of goals.
Hi.
Since there is a code police now:
I am sure that no one in his or her right mind would ever want something
like
opcode_t * code_start
in beautified code.
Of course, it's not a multiplication--we all know that--but when just
skimming over the code it sure distracts towards this
On Sat, Dec 29, 2001 at 06:25:33PM -1000, David Lisa Jacobs wrote:
First, I want to apologize for the size of this patch. I normally try to
make bite size changes but this one just touched too many things. I still
have a few enhancements to make but wanted to get this in before anyone else
On Sat, 29 Dec 2001, Boris Tschirschwitz wrote:
I suggest
opcode_t* code_start
So what does this declare:
opcode_t* code_start, code_end;
If you said two pointers to opcode_t then you just got fooled by your
notation! If you want to move the '*' then it has to go to the RHS since
I'm sure I was supposed to write something a little less terse than this,
but I'm tired.
We've not a lot folks. Balance the glitz work. It's still early, but we're
getting glitter-heavy, quickly. There's a lot of work on Parrot going on,
but not much work on Parrot, if you get my drift.
I
From what I could tell, it looks like Dan put it in there as a potential GC
hook when allocating the header of a string or PMC (see resources.c). My
guess is that he is planning to fire off the GC from the interpreter.
If that is the case and we need it back, let me know and I'll restore it.
I've updated my last patch and split it into three pieces. It's all
fairly trivial. First, some simple POD fixups to core.ops. Second,
a few minor code tweaks to silence a few compiler or lint warnings.
Third, a change to the makefile to turn on -Wall and (optionally)
-pedantic for gcc users.
10 matches
Mail list logo