Applied, thanks.
Mr. Nobody wrote:
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 20:57:57 GMT
From: Mr. Nobody [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [perl #15948] [PATCH] Configure broken on windows 9x
Resent-Date: 2 Aug 2002 20:57:57 -
Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Applied, thanks.
Mike Lambert
Simon Glover wrote:
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 21:00:19 GMT
From: Simon Glover [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [perl #15949] [PATCH] Silence warning in hash clone
Resent-Date: 2 Aug 2002 21:00:19 -
Resent-From:
Applied, thanks.
Mike Lambert
Simon Glover wrote:
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 21:40:51 GMT
From: Simon Glover [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [perl #15953] [PATCH] More GC tests
Resent-Date: 2 Aug 2002 21:40:52 -
Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Applied, thanks.
Mike Lambert
Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 15:03:21 GMT
From: Jarkko Hietaniemi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [perl #15943] [PATCH] UNICOS/mk vs dynaloading continues
Resent-Date: 2 Aug 2002 15:03:21 -
How come there is abs_i_i to put the absolute value of $2 into $1, but there's
no abs_i to convert $1 to absolute?
I can write more a efficient implementation of abs_i, because I don't need to
store the value back if it's already =0. If the parrot assembler had the
option of writing out abs
On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 03:59:28PM -0400, Richard Prescott wrote:
IMHO, C version shall exist anyway, for speed comparaison first (it is
always surprising how good compilers can be in some situations), then you
could find tricks that are faster on some processors (let's say AMD) and
not on
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dave Mitchell) writes:
Or would that make access by name too slow?
It's how Perl5 does it (very roughly speaking)
This is a reminder that people new to developing VMs may find it useful
to leaf through http://www.netthink.co.uk/downloads/internals.pdf and
I'm not sure what the solution to this is...
If you're shifting left, there's no confusion.
If you're shifting right, do you sign extend?
Perl actually gives you two options - the default uses unsigned integers in C:
$ perl -we '$a = 0xDEADBEEF; $b = $a 4; printf %08X\n%08X\n, $a, $b'
Nicholas Clark wrote:
I can write more a efficient implementation of abs_i ... things will
go slightly faster
The law of diminishing returns is broken for a VM. Eventually you
reach a point where adding more ops actually decreases total
performance. Instead of the change in performance tending
# New Ticket Created by Jarkko Hietaniemi
# Please include the string: [perl #15962]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=15962
Not all places have COMSPEC.
--- lib/Parrot/Configure/Step.pm.dist
On Sat, Aug 03, 2002 at 11:22:16AM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
How come there is abs_i_i to put the absolute value of $2 into $1, but there's
no abs_i to convert $1 to absolute?
I can write more a efficient implementation of abs_i, because I don't need to
store the value back if it's
On Sat, Aug 03, 2002 at 10:51:41AM -0400, Ken Fox wrote:
Nicholas Clark wrote:
I can write more a efficient implementation of abs_i ... things will
go slightly faster
The law of diminishing returns is broken for a VM. Eventually you
reach a point where adding more ops actually decreases
Nicholas Clark wrote:
It seems that foo (foo - 1) is zero only for a power of 2 (or foo == 0)
but is there a fast way once you know that foo is a power of 2, to find out
log2 foo?
You're right about (foo (foo -1)).
gcc uses a repeated test and shift. That's works very nicely if foo
is
Nicholas Clark wrote:
But there do seem already to be arguably duplicate 2 operand versions of
many ops. Hence I was surprised at the lack of consistency.
Right. I suspect that as people get more experience with the new
Perl 6 compiler the 2 operand ops will go away (or vice versa).
At the
On Sat, Aug 03, 2002 at 02:53:22PM +, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
# New Ticket Created by Jarkko Hietaniemi
# Please include the string: [perl #15962]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=15962
Not
On Sat, Aug 03, 2002 at 11:35:08AM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
I presume in the general case I'd have to know whether to call
Parrot_jit_normal_op() or Parrot_jit_cpcf_op(), so could there be a subroutine
in jit.c that I could call to make the correct decision for me?
Here is a patch for
On Sat, Aug 03, 2002 at 12:07:30PM -0400, Ken Fox wrote:
Nicholas Clark wrote:
It seems that foo (foo - 1) is zero only for a power of 2 (or foo == 0)
but is there a fast way once you know that foo is a power of 2, to find out
log2 foo?
The ARM doesn't have a find first set bit instruction
On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 01:06:27AM -0300, Daniel Grunblatt wrote:
On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, Nicholas Clark wrote:
Here goes. This *isn't* functional - it's the least amount of work I could
get away with (before midnight) that gets the inner loop of mops.pasm JITted.
Applied, many many
Jason Gloudon wrote:
http://www.ddj.com/ftp/2001/2001_07/aa0701.txt
I believe the LOOKUP method was the fastest for me on SPARC, if I recall
correctly.
Did they really spend 64K to create a lookup table just to find
the most significant bit? Calculating log2 for a power of two is
simpler --
KF == Ken Fox [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jason Gloudon wrote:
http://www.ddj.com/ftp/2001/2001_07/aa0701.txt
I believe the LOOKUP method was the fastest for me on SPARC, if I
recall
correctly.
Did they really spend 64K to create a lookup table just to find
the most
20 matches
Mail list logo
