On Jan 6, 2004, at 3:28 PM, Adam Thomason (via RT) wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Jeff Clites [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2003 4:30 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PATCH] PPC JIT fixes [re-send] (Modified by Jeff Clites)
7) I don't expect anything here to
Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It makes each chunk into a subclass of Buffer like so:
struct RegisterChunkBuf {
size_t used;
PObj* next;
};
That part is already answered: create a buffer_like structure.
*But* again register backing stacks are *not* in the
# New Ticket Created by Matt Fowles
# Please include the string: [perl #24830]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=24830
All~
Indeed this fix works, so I submitted it through the official channels
for
Matt Fowles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Indeed this fix works, so I submitted it through the official channels
for you.
Thanks, applied,
leo
Arthur Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I am wondering how the references to hash elements are planned to be
done? The call to set_ must somehow be delayed until the time is right.
Here is a pointer to the last discussion on that topic:
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 17:50:00 +0200
At 23:10 -0500 1/5/04, Gordon Henriksen wrote:
Data corruption unacceptable? I disagree. It depends on the contract
put forward by the language in question. Notably, Perl makes no such
guarantees thus far, being as how it doesn't (any longer) run in a
traditional threaded model. Successfully
Bernhard Schmalhofer (via RT) wrote:
besides skiing in the Austrian alps, I have worked some on my port of GNU m4
during the holidays.
Lot of snow now :)
config/gen/makefiles/m4.in:
I missed that one in the first place, added now.
So (hopefully) all is in (I dropped empty dirs and vims swap
At 23:10 -0500 1/5/04, Gordon Henriksen wrote:
Data corruption unacceptable? I disagree.
I get the feeling people just aren't reading what's been written, or
aren't keeping it all straight.
*User* and *program* data integrity is not our problem -- not only
are we not guaranteeing that, I'd be
On Jan 7, 2004, at 1:46 AM, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It makes each chunk into a subclass of Buffer like so:
struct RegisterChunkBuf {
size_t used;
PObj* next;
};
That part is already answered: create a buffer_like structure.
*But* again
At 1:32 PM -0800 1/6/04, Jeff Clites wrote:
On Jan 6, 2004, at 9:25 AM, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Arthur Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I am wondering how the references to hash elements are planned to be
done? The call to set_ must somehow be delayed until the time is right.
$foo =
-Original Message-
From: Jeff Clites [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 12:52 AM
To: Adam Thomason
Cc: Internals List
Subject: Re: [perl #24829] RE: [PATCH] PPC JIT fixes
[re-send] (Modified
by Jeff Clites)
1) In gdb, break on runops_jit, then step
Jeff Clites [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 7, 2004, at 1:46 AM, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
That part is already answered: create a buffer_like structure.
*But* again register backing stacks are *not* in the interpreter
context.
I don't understand what you are getting at. They are not physically
# New Ticket Created by Bernhard Schmalhofer
# Please include the string: [perl #24837]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=24837
Hi,
it's nice to have some code in the Parrot CVS.
This patch adds some
On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Dan Sugalski wrote:
*) Creating new objects involves calling the -init vtable entry *on
the class*. Because of this each class gets a custom vtable where the
init method has been swapped out for one (from objects.c) that
creates a new object instead.
Well, cool! How do I
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is entirely a matter of opinion and data design ...
Yep, that's it. The current behavior additionally is inconsistent.
Retrieving a reference (that is Parrot) out of a non-existant hash key
gives and unrelated new PerlUndef, when assigning to that,
Michal Wallace writes:
On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Dan Sugalski wrote:
*) Creating new objects involves calling the -init vtable entry *on
the class*. Because of this each class gets a custom vtable where the
init method has been swapped out for one (from objects.c) that
creates a new object
Leopold Toetsch writes:
Jeff Clites [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 7, 2004, at 1:46 AM, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
That part is already answered: create a buffer_like structure.
*But* again register backing stacks are *not* in the interpreter
context.
I don't understand what you are
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, Luke Palmer wrote:
Should go something like this:
.sub _main
.local object Cat
.local object felix
newclass Cat, Cat
find_type $I0, Cat
felix = new $I0
# ...
.end
Thanks, but that doesn't work either. :/
The
Michal Wallace writes:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, Luke Palmer wrote:
Should go something like this:
.sub _main
.local object Cat
.local object felix
newclass Cat, Cat
find_type $I0, Cat
felix = new $I0
# ...
.end
Thanks,
This patch re-implements the register backing stacks as PObjs (so they
can be garbage-collected), honors their COW flags, and adds them to the
interpreter context (where they should be, honest!).
As a healthy side-effect, it encapsulates their behavior nicely into
register.c, when before their
At 06:37 PM 1/7/2004 -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
Leopold Toetsch writes:
Jeff Clites [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 7, 2004, at 1:46 AM, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
That part is already answered: create a buffer_like structure.
*But* again register backing stacks are *not* in the interpreter
Melvin Smith writes:
The downside to our implementation is in the return continuation case.
The common case is to create the continuation that you plan to
return with, and you already know there will be no need for
copy-on-write in most cases because typically the execution
path will return
Leopold Toetsch writes:
Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
After many months of lying dormant, I figured I'd get my act together
and adapt this patch to the few recent modifications. And this time,
I'm posting a benchmark!
Wow, thanks.
Some comments:
-
23 matches
Mail list logo
