Jens Rieks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
cvsuser 04/05/19 14:14:39
Modified:src dynext.c packfile.c
Log:
added experimental parrotlib code that is used if _PARROTLIB is defined
I know that's too early to comment much WRT these changes. Could you
please outline the goals that
# New Ticket Created by Adam Thomason
# Please include the string: [perl #29742]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org:80/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=29742
Attached patch brings jit_debug_xcoff.c up to date with ICU changes.
--
Adam
Okay, let me preface this by saying it is, in large part, directly
because of my current work project, so it feels a bit self-serving.
(One of the reasons I haven't just put them in)
But...
Right now the only good way to find out if a value is true or not is
to do something like:
$I0 = 1
if
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Right now the only good way to find out if a value is true or not is
to do something like:
$I0 = 1
if $P0, done
$I0 = 0
done:
and look in $I0 for the result. This is OK, but if you're dealing
with a language with relatively primitive views of logical
Dan Sugalski writes:
Right now the only good way to find out if a value is true or not is
to do something like:
$I0 = 1
if $P0, done
$I0 = 0
done:
and look in $I0 for the result.
[snip]
Anyway, because of it I'm pondering non-flowcontrol logical ops. That
is, something like:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
istrue I0, P5# I0 = 1 if P5 is true
isgt I0, P5, P6 # I0 = i if P5 P6
By all means! I've thought non-branching comparison ops would be a good
idea for years...
--
Brent Dax Royal-Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Perl and Parrot hacker
Oceania has always been at
On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 10:18:06AM -0700, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
istrue I0, P5# I0 = 1 if P5 is true
isgt I0, P5, P6 # I0 = i if P5 P6
By all means! I've thought non-branching comparison ops would be a good
idea for years...
My goodness.
Anyway, because of it I'm pondering
non-flowcontrol logical ops.
Those would be very nice for us compiler-writers.
It's a bit (heh) late for me to bring this up, now,
but I always thought the flow-control ops should be
prefixed with 'j' or something. Like in most other
assemblies. You have je
Should aggregate PMCs (like PerlHash) be able to take
PMCs as keys? I mean so that:
$P0 = $P1[$P2]
where $P1 is a PerlHash, would work. The way it works
now is that it complains that you can't use a PMC as a
key. So my compiler has to spit out about 20 lines of
code for every sub-element
At 11:40 AM -0400 5/20/04, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Anyway, because of it I'm pondering non-flowcontrol logical ops.
That is, something like:
istrue I0, P5# I0 = 1 if P5 is true
isgt I0, P5, P6 # I0 = i if P5 P6
Okay, it's pretty obvious that these would be useful and people have
On Thursday 20 May 2004 17:40, Dan Sugalski wrote:
$I0 = 1
if $P0, done
$I0 = 0
done:
I see a similar problem with the isnull op:
getattribute $P0, ...
isnull $P0, INIT
branch DONE
INIT:
$P0 = new .Foo
setattribute ..., $P0
DONE:
11 matches
Mail list logo
