Below is a rather straightforward patch, but as it represents an
interface change (albeit a fully backwards compatible one), I thought I
would post it for discussion.
Background on the proposed change: there apparently are two sets of
"runops" functions, I'd characterize Parrot_runops_fromc as
Hi all,
I'm trying to compile Parrot on Win XP (with MS Visual C++ authoring edition
installed) and - after cvs update, nmake realclean, perl Configure.pl -
nmake works for a while and stops with:
...
astlexer.c
ast\astlexer.c(1433) : fatal error C1083: Include-Datei kann nicht geöffnet
werden:
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 10:07:43 -0500 (EST), Jeff Horwitz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> is it useful? not really. does it help you waste 5 minutes of your day?
> certainly. :)
Waiting for the request to time out indeed wasted some idle time :-)
-ingly yours,
Michael
At 11:13 AM +0100 12/14/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
subclass - To create a subclass of a class object
Is existing and used.
Right. I was listing the things we need in the protocol. Some of them
we've got, some we don't, and some of the stuff we have we
Ah yep, that surely is the reason. Too bad, have to wait until I get home ;-)
- Michael
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 11:25:32 -0500 (EST), Jeff Horwitz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> hm, works fine for others. maybe the weird port i'm using for that web
> server isn't agreeing with your firewall.
>
> -je
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 10:49:31AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >Yes. I'll presume that the first Perl6 compiler will just emit closures
> >for each block.
>
> Ah, I hope not. I *really* hope not. (Paying attention Patrick? :)
> That'd be rather slower than necessary in most cases.
Yup, I'm payi
hm, works fine for others. maybe the weird port i'm using for that web
server isn't agreeing with your firewall.
-jeff
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, Michael Walter wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 10:07:43 -0500 (EST), Jeff Horwitz
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > is it useful? not really. does it help yo
Will Coleda via RT wrote:
Sam's latest patch seems to have resolved this issue - dynclasses now build,
and:
perl t/harness t/dynclass/py*
skips 1 test, passes everything else.
What test is skipped?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/parrot/dynclasses$ make test
cd .. ; perl -Ilib t/harness t/dynclass/*.t
t/dyncl
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 7:45 AM +0100 12/11/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
>>Thinking more about that it seems that we don't have much chance to keep
>>the current scheme that the destination is passed in.
> I fully expected this to be an issue. Perl 5 and perl 6 are going to
> ha
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 8:07 AM +0100 12/10/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
>>* What is the intended usage of the action handler?
>>* Specifically is this also ment for lazy DOD runs?
>>* How is the relationship to the C opcode?
> The one thing that I figure *will* be done is that
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IMCC's doing odd things when moving PMCs into the appropriate spot
> when calling into functions with a large number of parameters. Here's
> a snip from a trace of one of the programs running. Note the lines
> from bytecode offset 78123, 78126, and 78130.
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Currently parrot sets the current object for a method call *after*
> calliing invoke on the invokable thing. This is a bit problematic,
> since the invokable thing likely needs to have the object in place to
> invoke right.
Fixed.
leo
12 matches
Mail list logo
