At 12:19 10/06/2005 +0200, you wrote:
On Saturday 04 June 2005 20:29, Clement Cherlin wrote:
I include a patch I made for the above problems. Some of the changes are
kind of kludgey, so I would appreciate comments and suggestions on how to
improve them.
Thanks, applied.
Please, revert this
# New Ticket Created by Chip Salzenberg
# Please include the string: [perl #36283]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: https://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=36283
It makes sense to allow e.g. C$P0 = add $P1, $P2 as alternative
syntax for Cadd
Bob Rogers wrote:
So, IMHO, it seems more versatile to have these opcodes operate on
one arg/return at a time, instead of monolithically on the whole list:
set_arg index, flags, val
If somehow possible, I'd really like to avoid indirect register
addressing. The register allocator
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005, Andy Dougherty wrote:
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.
# New Ticket Created by Andy Dougherty
# Please include the string: [perl #36286]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: https://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=36286
My system couldn't handle an optimized compile of ops/core_ops_switch.c.
On 6/14/05, Chip Salzenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
.sub __add
.param MyType $P0 :flags(0x40) # or @flags(0x40)? - inv. w/o colon
(e.g.)
.param $I0 :flags(0x20) # invocant with colon (e.g.)
...
What do you think?
I think the typecodes are unnecessary with a
From: Leopold Toetsch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 11:48:06 +0200
Bob Rogers wrote:
. . .
To ignore a parameter, simply don't fetch it. To ignore a return,
simply don't supply a register for it.
Yep - that's still doable, but not in the middle, which
