Andy Dougherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thinking it might have something to do with the SPARC architecture,
> I tried it on x86, where Parrot took 80 times as long:
>
> C: time ./ack 11
> Ack(3,11): 16381
>
> real0m0.759s
> user0m0.758s
> sys 0m0.002s
>
> Parrot: t
On Feb 10, 2006, at 18:34, Andy Dougherty wrote:
On Wed, 8 Feb 2006, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Parrot runs the ackermann benchmark faster than C.
This looked like fun, so I tried it on Solaris/SPARC.
Solaris/SPARC doesn't have a working JIT runcore rurrently and I can't
test it - no chance
On Feb 10, 2006, at 9:56, Andy Dougherty via RT wrote:
I too had seen this memory problem before on Solaris/SPARC, but I'm
pretty sure I saw it even when running t/past_node_5.pir directly.
However, trying again today, I'm happy to report that that particular
problem seems to be gone.
Excellen
On 2/8/06, via RT jerry gay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ~ the official text will be associated to each file in the parrot
> repository via a new svn keyword, 'Copyright'
now DONE, r11501.
still TODO:
> ~ copyright text in each text file will be replaced with the new
> keyword for expansion
> ~ c
On Sat, 4 Feb 2006, Allison Randal wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2006, at 17:33, Joshua Isom via RT wrote:
> >
> > But, I've encountered two major problems. On darwin, I can't finish
> > past_node.t, first parrot takes over 100 megs of ram, then perl(5.8.7)
> > wants 180 megs. On freebsd, it's actually wo
On Wed, 8 Feb 2006, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> Parrot runs the ackermann benchmark faster than C.
>
> $ time ./parrot -Oc -C ack.pir 11
> Ack(3, 11) = 16381
>
> real0m0.567s
> user0m0.559s
> sys 0m0.008s
>
> $ time ./ack 11
> Ack(3,11): 16381
>
> real0m0.980s
> user0m0.978s
>
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 10:52:42AM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
>
> On Feb 10, 2006, at 3:15, Joshua Isom wrote:
>
> [ quoting rearranged - please don't toppost ]
>
> >On Feb 9, 2006, at 6:20 PM, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
>
> >>$ cat div.pasm
> >>set I0, 0x8000
> >>div I1, I0, -1
> >>print I1
"Leopold Toetsch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Strange, but it exists for just on case (well not strange, there are just
more negative numbers ...):
$ cat div.pasm
set I0, 0x8000
Which is the largest negative number we can represent in 32 bit integers
(-2147483648).
div I1, I0, -1
print I
On Feb 10, 2006, at 3:15, Joshua Isom wrote:
[ quoting rearranged - please don't toppost ]
On Feb 9, 2006, at 6:20 PM, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
$ cat div.pasm
set I0, 0x8000
div I1, I0, -1
print I1
print "\n"
end
Why not case it to switch it to 0x7fff? In any case, if the
code's a
