At 11:17 PM +0200 9/1/03, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ heavily snipped ]
Now, for aggregates that hold PMCs ...
... and on JITted cores there's no
win at all.
For aggregates that *don't* hold PMCs, though, that's where the win
is.
If we don't have
At 12:03 PM +0200 8/31/03, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Benjamin Goldberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
class freezer {
class thawer {
class cloner {
[ big snip ]
Do you expect that these are overridden by some languages using parrot?
I.e. that ponie tries to implement a freezer that writes
At 6:37 PM +0200 8/29/03, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
I think, we need a general solution for freeze, dump and clone. As shown
the latter is broken. That would be IMHO an iterator interface with a
callback function
At 8:06 PM +0200 9/1/03, Clemens Eisserer wrote:
Hi there!
I´m a java programmer and I´m not really experienced with perl.
But I´ve searched a long time for a system like .NET that can´t be
controlled by Microsoft through Patents.
Do be aware that Microsoft may still hold patents that affect
At 1:04 PM -0600 9/1/03, Luke Palmer wrote:
Clemens Eisserer writes:
Hi there!
Ië¾m a java programmer
Uh oh :-)
and Ië¾m not really experienced with perl.
[...]
I think that parrot could be the Gnu-version of .NET and could be a
realy benefit for the whole opensource-world. No 20
This patch adds a new item to the must part of pdd7.
Pdd7's still missing:
A. Solving the problem of typedef struct a *a
Summarizng Leo's, Juergen's, and Brent's ideas,
I propose the following:
To have an underscore prepended to the stuct ParrotInterp.
To use ParrotInterp defined as typedef
Though I haven't been following this thread, it seems you're coming up
with some File::Spec-like thing for Parrot?
Exactly.
I'd recommend looking at Ken Williams' excellent Path::Class module
Surely, I will.
So yes, you must distinguish between concatenating directories and files.
You
Should I expect:
parrot -o foo.pasm foo.imc
parrot foo.pasm args
to work like:
parrot foo.imc args
? (it doesn't appear to be de-mangling two different outer: labels,
each of which is in it's own enclosing .sub)
I'm trying to track down a bug where a .local var that's a PerlArray is
getting
Will Coleda writes:
Should I expect:
parrot -o foo.pasm foo.imc
parrot foo.pasm args
to work like:
parrot foo.imc args
No. imcc doesn't emit local labels properly (as you seem to have
discovered).
? (it doesn't appear to be de-mangling two different outer: labels,
each of which
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 11:17 PM +0200 9/1/03, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
I don't see the point here especially why we would need a temporary PMC.
If we have an array of packed ints, I just need a pointer to the element
to work on it. This is very similar to the Ckey opcode I had in
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 6:37 PM +0200 8/29/03, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Aren't you saying the opposite of above here? I want to be able to
traverse from a given start point (being it the own interpreter or some
PMC) as deeply down as there is something. You did say, that we don't
Will Coleda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Should I expect:
[ Luke already did answer it, but some more hints ]
parrot -o foo.pasm foo.imc
parrot foo.pasm args
to work like:
parrot foo.imc args
No. as mentioned. The most useful thing here probably is:
$ parrot -o- foo.imc # | less
to have
Leopold Toetsch writes:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 11:17 PM +0200 9/1/03, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
I don't see the point here especially why we would need a temporary PMC.
If we have an array of packed ints, I just need a pointer to the element
to work on it. This is very
Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Leopold Toetsch writes:
And I think you're saying that it'll be illegal to use this pointer PMC
if the aggregate changes or anything like that, so the proxy can be as
dumb and fast as possible... right? And that it wouldn't really need a
header. So it
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
and no, not that one inside DOD, that one doesn't handle duplicates.
Yes, yes it *does* handle duplicates. Otherwise it'd get caught in
infinite loops every time it came across a circular data structure. That's
what the next pointer in the PObj
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
and no, not that one inside DOD, that one doesn't handle duplicates.
Yes, yes it *does* handle duplicates. Otherwise it'd get caught in
infinite loops every time it came across a circular data structure. That's
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
and no, not that one inside DOD, that one doesn't handle duplicates.
Yes, yes it *does* handle duplicates. Otherwise it'd get caught in
infinite loops every
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 06:39:23AM +0300, Vladimir Lipskiy wrote:
C. #if defined/undefined vs 0/1 issue
I'm for ifdef/ifndef.
For complex combinations of conditionals you have to write things like
#if defined(A) || defined (B)
but I think that we can live with that.
D. Function
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
So if it was mark()ed already we return. That's not possible for freeze,
thaw, dump, clone whatever. These must keep track of already visited
objects via an hash for freeze, dump, clone, and via an ID array for
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
So if it was mark()ed already we return. That's not possible for freeze,
thaw, dump, clone whatever. These must keep track of already visited
objects via an hash
Hello,
Now I use my brand new commit access:
Non-Terminal IO-Layers often call down to the lower-lying
layers. Until now this was done in a while-loop reimplemented in every
upper layer (At the moment there is only one io_buf but there will be
more). This commit introduces new io_system private
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Doing the walk is *also* easy. You clear the next PMC pointer, just as
with a normal DOD run setup. call the DOD mark on the inital PMC
there is no mark() for a plain PMC scalar (and no next pointer inside
the PMC). If the PMC has a mark routine this calls
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Doing the walk is *also* easy. You clear the next PMC pointer, just as
with a normal DOD run setup. call the DOD mark on the inital PMC
there is no mark() for a plain PMC scalar (and no next pointer inside
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Every PMC should have a next_for_GC pointer. You moved it to the ext
structure, ...
I moved it there for a good reason: speed. The smaller a PMC the faster
is the interpreter.
... but it's there, and they all ought to have one. Any PMC that
gets frozen
Clemens,
classpath
I guess the proper term would be class library. The path is only where
you look for the libraries :).
It doesn't seem to be the Perl way to limit yourself to one option
only (There's more than one way to do it). Of course we wouldn't
want five different implementations of
Though I haven't been following this thread, it seems you're coming up
with some File::Spec-like thing for Parrot?
I'd recommend looking at Ken Williams' excellent Path::Class module
which gives you actual file and directory objects. EXTREMELY useful when
you're in an ultra-cross platform
Darn. I was all set to write an amusing email about how I wasn't
offended that noone responded to my email, when someone went and
responded to my mail. OTOH, in the meantime I got my fifteen bytes of
fame in the P6 summary, plus the opportunity to play this week's Perl
Golf instead of mucking
Darn. I was all set to write an amusing email about how I wasn't
offended that noone responded to my email, when someone went and
responded to my mail. OTOH, in the meantime I got my fifteen bytes of
fame in the P6 summary, plus the opportunity to play this week's Perl
Golf instead of mucking
A couple more questions on the coding front:
(1) Even though it's supposed to be native Parrot support, I'm still
allowed to write in PIR, right? Because that'll be translated to pasm
and thereby be native.
(2) WinFrotz, one of the popular C Z-machine runtimes, is GPL. If I
steal code or ideas
I don't know why this didn't show up anywhere else, but on Solaris 8 with
perl5.00503, the imcc/t/syn/file.t tests that tried to load temp.pbc were
all failing. The reason turned out to be that the temp.imc files hadn't
been flushed to disk yet. Explicitly closing the files ensures
that they are
C. #if defined/undefined vs 0/1 issue
I'm for ifdef/ifndef.
For complex combinations of conditionals you have to write things like
#if defined(A) || defined (B)
Sure. But I didn't precisely mean ifdef/ifndef. I was and am for
defined/undefined and used ifdef/ifndef there just as a
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
[snip]
[1] when we want to thaw/clone big structures, we should have some means
to estimate the amount of needed headers. If we will not have enough, we
do a DOD run before clone/thaw and then turn DOD off - it will not yield
any more free headers anyway. This can avoid
Amir Karger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I got my fifteen bytes of fame in the P6 summary ...
Geewhillikins ... But you can always get more: Convert it into
Unicode (~:
_VL_
But how can we do it if we don't know what it is?
Why, blame it all, we've GOT to
I'm looking for, but not finding, information regarding the character
type and encoding on parrot io objects.
As an example of why... I found this in io.ops :
op write(in PMC) {
PMC *p = $1;
STRING *s = (VTABLE_get_string(interpreter, p));
if (s) {
PIO_write(interpreter,
On Tuesday 02 September 2003 13:09, Amir Karger wrote:
A couple more questions on the coding front:
(1) Even though it's supposed to be native Parrot support, I'm still
allowed to write in PIR, right? Because that'll be translated to pasm
and thereby be native.
(2) WinFrotz, one of the
Zellyn Hunter writes:
On Tuesday 02 September 2003 13:09, Amir Karger wrote:
A couple more questions on the coding front:
(1) Even though it's supposed to be native Parrot support, I'm still
allowed to write in PIR, right? Because that'll be translated to pasm
and thereby be native.
At 8:38 PM +0200 9/2/03, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Every PMC should have a next_for_GC pointer. You moved it to the ext
structure, ...
I moved it there for a good reason: speed. The smaller a PMC the faster
is the interpreter.
Right, and this part is only
At 8:53 PM +0200 9/1/03, Christian Renz wrote:
Clemens,
classpath
I guess the proper term would be class library. The path is only where
you look for the libraries :).
It doesn't seem to be the Perl way to limit yourself to one option
only (There's more than one way to do it).
I'd worry less
38 matches
Mail list logo
