giving up on
big low-level pieces of the design somewhere, but I've not written
that one yet. :)
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED
to be a .so
too so it can be upgraded without having to rebuild parrot)
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy
this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 2:33 PM -0400 5/24/04, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 2:28 PM -0400 5/24/04, Matt Fowles wrote:
Dan~
You recently decided to switch from a reasonably large number of
opcode variants to a multiple dispatch system. As a lurker, it
kind of took me by surprise because it seemed like a relatively
large
At 11:50 PM +0200 5/20/04, Jens Rieks wrote:
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
.
It probably does. We ought to allow for using a C++ aware linker to
link parrot, since we may be embedded in a C++ program.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
)
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
Attached patch brings jit_debug_xcoff.c up to date with ICU changes.
Applied, thanks.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED
with
or P4, P5, P6
istrue P4
so there doesn't seem to be much pressure there.
Given the semi-self-serving nature of these I think some discussion's
in order first.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski
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
of
the semantics in.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
At 9:39 AM +0200 5/18/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The question isn't whether they *do*--rather it's whether they
*should*. The current implementation's not all that relevant except
as a demonstration of one set of semantics. What I want to do is work
out
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 5:54 PM +0200 5/17/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The basics of MMD are almost done. The two things we still need to
deal with are:
*) Inherited methods
*) Objects
... Either way we need to build up
the tables so inherited MMD methods actually get
it, at least for now.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
At 8:58 AM -0400 5/13/04, Sterling Hughes wrote:
patch attached. gist: how do i manage a simple case of lexical pads?
Applied. Now to get the darned things answered...
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan
At 10:48 AM -0700 5/14/04, Jeff Clites wrote:
On May 14, 2004, at 9:04 AM, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Today's project is to get all the MMD things actually using MMD.
I've put in the first wave of changes (well, OK, second if you
consider Leo's BXOR test as the first) and should get the rest
with the literature if I need to write one from scratch.
Since you've been itching to get into the internals anyway, this'd be
a good place to start, y'know. :-P
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski
.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
be dynamically
loaded needs to have its parrot symbols available.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears
.
Can't hurt to have them split out to start with.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 2:59 PM -0400 5/11/04, Gordon Henriksen wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
chromatic wrote:
So for SDL, I'd start a separate thread that blocks on
SDL_WaitEvent,
creating and posting events when they happen. My main program would
handle the events as normal Parrot events. Standard producer
At 2:47 PM -0400 5/11/04, Gordon Henriksen wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 10:33 AM -0700 5/11/04, chromatic wrote:
On Tue, 2004-05-11 at 10:24, Dan Sugalski wrote:
I'm also curious how to write an interface to an
existing event system.
Being able to write it all in PASM is a bonus
places it isn't in
others (like the whole attribute/property mess) we may be well-served
choosing another name. I'm open to suggestions here...
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski
At 12:14 PM -0700 5/11/04, Dave Whipp wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The terminology there's a bit strained, and I think it's in large
part responsible for most of the rest of the confusion.
They're probably better called Named and Anonymous events, though
that's a bit dodgy
At 9:41 AM +0200 5/12/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Uri Guttman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DS == Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DS Because of this, you have the event PMC for a Named event before the
DS event occurs and thus can wait on it. You *don't* have the event PMC
DS
At 8:02 PM +0200 5/12/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 9:41 AM +0200 5/12/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
$SIG{CHLD} = sub { 1; };
This could probably create the event PMC, associate the user callback
with it, enable SIGCHLD and be done with it. It's the same
At 1:24 PM -0500 5/10/04, Allison Randal wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
I'm not so sure about that. (Not that it won't be replaced, but that
it needs the grammar engine) I'm pretty sure that grammars as Larry's
defined 'em are recursive-descent, and if that's true then I've this
really nasty
out for me. :)
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy
At 1:02 PM -0700 5/10/04, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... As such I've started a FAQ in
docs/compiler_faq.pod.
When I read that file name, I though about gcc, Win32 compilers usable
for Parrot. Could be misleading ...
Index: docs
.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 2:15 PM -0500 5/10/04, Allison Randal wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
I think the first step here is to get the low-level perl operations
defined, and their parrot translations worked out. For this I mean
that we need to have a list of:
Perl:
a = b + c;
Parrot:
add a, b, c
queue. Returns
success status, 0 on success, 1 on failure. This function may fail if
the event can't be posted to the target interpreter's event queue for
some reason.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 10:09 AM -0700 5/11/04, chromatic wrote:
On Tue, 2004-05-11 at 09:44, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Thinking we might want:
waitall Parray_of_events
waitany Parray_of_events
?
I certainly do!
Fair enough.
I'm also curious how to write an interface to an existing event system.
Being able
At 10:33 AM -0700 5/11/04, chromatic wrote:
On Tue, 2004-05-11 at 10:24, Dan Sugalski wrote:
I'm also curious how to write an interface to an existing event system.
Being able to write it all in PASM is a bonus.
I don't think it can be all-PASM, except maybe (and maybe not...)
with a separate
At 1:10 PM -0400 5/11/04, Uri Guttman wrote:
DS == Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DS Event Classes
DS =
DS There are two main classes of events, which we'll call expected and
DS unexpected.
DS An expected event is one that your program is specifically expecting
At 11:18 AM -0700 5/11/04, chromatic wrote:
On Tue, 2004-05-11 at 10:45, Dan Sugalski wrote:
That'll still need some C. The event system as it stands is all
active--all event sources put events into the system, rather than
having the event system go looking at event sources for events. You'd
At 10:34 AM +0100 5/10/04, Tim Bunce wrote:
On Sat, May 08, 2004 at 04:59:52PM -0700, Jeff Clites wrote:
On May 8, 2004, at 10:30 AM, Dan Sugalski wrote:
(Note that, regardless of anything else, we do need to separate out
stream IO and record IO, both for layer filtering reasons and for pure
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
and repost 'em to the list, well... that'd be swell.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
At 5:11 PM +0200 5/10/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 1:36 PM +0200 5/10/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Interesting is the dispatch inside objects. These have a delegate
vtable which runs a PASM function. But it could be redispatched
before by installing
At 8:31 AM -0700 5/10/04, Jeff Clites wrote:
On May 10, 2004, at 7:31 AM, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 10:34 AM +0100 5/10/04, Tim Bunce wrote:
On Sat, May 08, 2004 at 04:59:52PM -0700, Jeff Clites wrote:
On May 8, 2004, at 10:30 AM, Dan Sugalski wrote:
(Note that, regardless of anything else, we
, that'd be great.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy
. :)
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
sluggish than the current perl 5 parser.
(OTOH, if the grammar engine's not required to be recursive-descent
that makes things rather faster, which is fine with me :)
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski
At 12:43 PM +0200 5/8/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm up for the mmd-variant version. We just have a one-dimensional
table for PMC/int, PMC/float, and PMC/string functions and have the
ops directly dispatch to it. Seems simpler than stuffing the
functions
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
work on this stuff.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
At 9:04 PM +0200 5/8/04, Ron Blaschke wrote:
On Wed, 5 May 2004 13:59:14 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Another todo list task for the interested. A perl linker thing.
Right now, through the wonders of the Unix default linking
conventions, every function in parrot gets exported whether we
things to
parrot's internals.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 12:54 PM +0200 5/7/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Leopold Toetsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... And... we
move *all* the operator functions out of the vtable and into the MMD
system. All of it.
This *all* includes vtable functions like add_int
At 4:58 PM +0200 5/7/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Apparently it's not happy with things of the form
foo = bar * .95
where the RHS of the binary operation is a floating point constant
with no integer portion. Changing it to 0.95 works, so I assume
to pobject_lives and
3.4 billion calls to getBucket. Either something's gone wrong in the
profiling or you've gone really degenerate somehow.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
in with the string stuff
we're still fighting over.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
At 12:40 AM -0700 5/5/04, Jeff Clites wrote:
On May 4, 2004, at 5:34 AM, Dan Sugalski wrote:
The right way to fix this is to have a file with the acceptable
exportable symbols and a fix to the link stage to convince the
linker that it should *only* export these symbols.
I have this working
At 12:02 PM +0200 5/5/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 11:35 AM +0200 4/30/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If we go MMD all the way, we can skip the bytecode-C-bytecode
transition for MMD functions that are written in parrot
invoke, only it uses the return continuation
register.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
At 7:16 PM +0200 5/5/04, Ron Blaschke wrote:
On Tue, 4 May 2004 08:34:55 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Another todo list task for the interested. A perl linker thing.
Right now, through the wonders of the Unix default linking
conventions, every function in parrot gets exported whether we want
At 7:57 PM +0100 5/5/04, Nicholas Clark wrote:
On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 08:59:03AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Yeah, that's what I'm figuring. The symbols themselves should be
cross-platform, modulo the odd prefix character, or so I hope. The
linker magic is definitely going to be platform
.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 11:25 AM -0400 5/4/04, Aaron Sherman wrote:
On Tue, 2004-05-04 at 09:25, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Okay, I'm working up the design for the event and IO system so we can
get that underway (who, me, avoid the unpleasantness of strings?
Nah... :) and I've come across an interesting question.
The way
At 4:17 PM +0200 5/4/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... stuff like that. Can anyone think of a reason that someone
would want to wait *specifically* on one type of event like this,
Well, just for symmetry
new Px, EventWait
set Px, 0.1
waitfor Px
what the guarantees are.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
At 11:03 AM -0400 5/4/04, Uri Guttman wrote:
DS == Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DS However...
DS There are those pesky repeating events, and events from outside
DS sources. Signals, mouse clicks, window resizes, repeating timer
DS firings... stuff like that. Can anyone think
At 12:00 PM -0400 5/4/04, Aaron Sherman wrote:
On Tue, 2004-05-04 at 11:36, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 11:25 AM -0400 5/4/04, Aaron Sherman wrote:
So, all Parrot IO will be asynchronous? Does that mean that there's no
way to perform an atomic read or write?
Yes, and there isn't now anywhere
At 4:25 PM -0700 5/4/04, Jeff Clites wrote:
On May 4, 2004, at 9:02 AM, Dan Sugalski wrote:
While Parrot will do async IO, we are making ordering guarantees
for reads and writes (though reads and writes will be considered
separate and ordered separately). That is, if you issue two or more
reads
.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
://oss.software.ibm.com/icu/download/2.6.2/index.html, so if
someone'd like to snag that, install it, and teach Parrot to link
with it instead of our source, that'd be quite cool.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan
.
This is a known issue with ICU. I don't think it's fixable on our
end, unfortunately, though if there was a fix I expect the ICU
folks'd take it.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even
At 9:33 PM +0100 5/3/04, Nicholas Clark wrote:
On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 10:46:28AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
3) The embedding wrapper is responsible for setting and resetting the
top of stack.
I don't think that this is quite right. The embedding wrapper needs to
set (and reset) the top of stack
At 9:43 PM +0100 5/3/04, Nicholas Clark wrote:
On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 04:36:38PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 9:33 PM +0100 5/3/04, Nicholas Clark wrote:
On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 10:46:28AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
3) The embedding wrapper is responsible for setting and resetting
At 4:00 PM +0200 5/2/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well... about that. It's actually easily doable with a bit of
trickery. We can either:
I have trickery number 4) here. Dunno if its doable, but worth
considering IMHO:
It's doable but the problem you run
like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
for comparison purposes, but we can defer that one for
now.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
At 11:35 AM +0200 4/30/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If we go MMD all the way, we can skip the bytecode-C-bytecode
transition for MMD functions that are written in parrot bytecode, and
instead dispatch to them like any other sub.
Not really. Or not w/o
libraries.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
this.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 2:58 PM -0400 4/30/04, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
On Fri, 2004-04-30 at 13:53, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Parrot, at the very low levels, makes no distinction between strings
and buffers--as far as it's concerned they're the same thing, and
either can hang off an S register. (Ultimately, when *I* talk
At 4:15 PM -0400 4/30/04, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
On Fri, 2004-04-30 at 15:34, Dan Sugalski wrote:
If you want, you could think of the S-register strings as mini-PMCs.
The encoding and charset stuff (we'll ignore language semantics for
the moment) are essentially small vtables that hang off
At 7:07 PM -0700 4/30/04, Jeff Clites wrote:
On Apr 30, 2004, at 10:22 AM, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 2:57 AM +1000 5/1/04, Andre Pang wrote:
Of course Parrot should have a function to reinterpret something
of a string type as raw binary data and vice versa, but don't mix
binary data with strings
primitive) and building a
tool to do the cleanup of the parameters that generates bytecode to
do it instead.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED
support in it)
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears
At 9:00 AM +0200 4/29/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Log:
It's whether JIT_CAPABLE is set, not exists
Ah yes. Thanks. It's too simple to mix these two cases. There were some
approaches to unify that along with unique PARROT_ prefixes.
Yeah. Not a big deal, I
At 8:56 AM +0200 4/29/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Looks like compiler modules may be done in one of three ways:
1) A plain sub, which is passed in the string to compile and returns
a sub PMC that represents the compiled code (if it actually does
something
--this'll let us wedge in
generational collectors or (if someone *really* must...) reference
counting.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED
At 3:55 PM +0200 4/29/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Okay, we've a long-running discussion between Leo and I about the
keyed variants for all the binary vtable entries.
Another long running discussion: do we need duplicate mmd tables.
Dunno. Don't care, really
At 4:10 PM +0200 4/29/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just to double-check--it's OK to register *any* sub as a compiler
module, though for right now it'll ultimately need to call compile
itself to either the pasm or pir compiler module and return the
result
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 11:42 AM -0400 4/29/04, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 3:55 PM +0200 4/29/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Another long running discussion: do we need duplicate mmd tables.
Here is a proof of concept to avoid it:
Oh, right, and... this is really, really evil. Which is why I just
put it in. :)
And just
At 4:54 PM +0200 4/29/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 3:55 PM +0200 4/29/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Another long running discussion: do we need duplicate mmd tables.
Dunno. Don't care, really--I was throwing in two tables as
proof-of-concept just to get
that
shifts on ints works--that is, it doesn't grow, bits just fall off
the end. You can decide whether to sign-extend or 0-extend, either
one's OK.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski
601 - 700 of 3756 matches
Mail list logo
