# New Ticket Created by Leopold Toetsch
# Please include the string: [perl #36266]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: https://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=36266
perldoc -ud packfile-c.pod ../src/packfile.c
Unknow option -d
leo
On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 03:03:24PM -0400, Matt Fowles wrote:
3) Chip is right, Piers is right. The two of you have are working from
a different base set of definitions/axioms or misunderstood each other
in some other way.
Historically, (pre Perl 6 actually) I think that this scenario was the
On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 09:41:05PM -0700, Bill Coffman wrote:
Continuations can be taken from within any sub, and possibly even
when appending to a list, if you're using lazy list eval.
Oh no ... it's even worse than you think. Almost *any* opcode that
operates on a PMC can trigger a
On 6/13/05, Chip Salzenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh no ... it's even worse than you think. Almost *any* opcode that
operates on a PMC can trigger a continuation. And I only need two
words to prove it:
Tied variables.
Isn't this *exactly* why Perl 6 is requiring you to mark tied
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 09:21:00AM -0700, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
On 6/13/05, Chip Salzenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh no ... it's even worse than you think. Almost *any* opcode that
operates on a PMC can trigger a continuation. And I only need two
words to prove it:
Tied
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 09:21:00AM -0700, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
On 6/13/05, Chip Salzenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh no ... it's even worse than you think. Almost *any* opcode that
operates on a PMC can trigger a continuation. And I only need two
words to prove it:
Tied
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 12:37:52AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 09:21:00AM -0700, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
On 6/13/05, Chip Salzenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh no ... it's even worse than you think. Almost *any* opcode that
operates on a PMC can trigger a
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 06:52:35PM +0200, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
Isn't this *exactly* why Perl 6 is requiring you to mark tied
variables when they're declared?
Yes.
Um:
my $x is tied;
tied $x, SomePackage;
unsuspecting_victim(\$x); # ???
Hmm, you can't say is tied;
# New Ticket Created by Andy Dougherty
# Please include the string: [perl #36269]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: https://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=36269
As discussed in
http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl6.internals/29984
a
Andy Dougherty (via RT) wrote:
... On SPARC, doubles should be aligned on 8-bit boundaries.
The speculation is that the _num_val part of the UnionVal in the PMC
ends up unaligned. However, I couldn't follow where that happened, so I
can't suggest a patch.
It happends directly in the PMC
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 07:12:48PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Andy Dougherty (via RT) wrote:
... On SPARC, doubles should be aligned on 8-bit boundaries.
The speculation is that the _num_val part of the UnionVal in the PMC
ends up unaligned. However, I couldn't follow where that happened,
Chip Salzenberg wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 07:12:48PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Andy Dougherty (via RT) wrote:
... On SPARC, doubles should be aligned on 8-bit boundaries.
The speculation is that the _num_val part of the UnionVal in the PMC
ends up unaligned. However, I couldn't
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 07:29:53PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
The PMC allocation area is a big bunch of memory, where PMC-sized
pieces are carved out by the memory allocation system. There is no
union or compiler bug involved.
But PMC-sized is defined in terms of the C sizeof operator,
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005, Chip Salzenberg via RT wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 08:38:30PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Chip Salzenberg wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 07:29:53PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
The PMC allocation area is a big bunch of memory, where PMC-sized
pieces are carved
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 02:57:09PM -0400, Andy Dougherty wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005, Chip Salzenberg via RT wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 08:38:30PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Chip Salzenberg wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 07:29:53PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
The PMC
Chip Salzenberg wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 02:57:09PM -0400, Andy Dougherty wrote:
Yes. The compiler does the right thing. It sensibly reports
that sizeof(PMC) = 24 for SPARC.
Then I remain puzzled how Parrot could ever misalign a double.
Yes. So I am. Could somone please run this
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005, Leopold Toetsch via RT wrote:
Chip Salzenberg wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 02:57:09PM -0400, Andy Dougherty wrote:
Yes. The compiler does the right thing. It sensibly reports
that sizeof(PMC) = 24 for SPARC.
Then I remain puzzled how Parrot could ever
I've posted a report on the Hackathon Days 2+3 as a journal entry on
use.perl.org:
http://use.perl.org/~chip/journal/25182
I'm not going to copy it here, but you probably want to read it, if
only because it will point you to AN UPDATED PDD. Really.
--
Chip Salzenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 6/13/05, Chip Salzenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've posted a report on the Hackathon Days 2+3 as a journal entry on
use.perl.org http://use.perl.org:
http://use.perl.org/~chip/journal/25182
I'm not going to copy it here, but you probably want to read it, if
only because it will
# New Ticket Created by Will Coleda
# Please include the string: [perl #36277]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: https://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=36277
Need parrot support before this can be implemented.
From: Chip Salzenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 00:04:54 +0200
. . . you probably want to read it, if only because it will point you
to AN UPDATED PDD. Really.
Great! Pardon the typing; it's hard when my head is spinning . . .
FWIW, there is one thing that jumps
21 matches
Mail list logo
