On Wed Feb 25 16:08:29 2009, jk...@verizon.net wrote:
On Thu Jan 29 06:15:28 2009, Whiteknight wrote:
has the remove_pic branch landed yet?
Well, it's still an active branch in SVN. So I would guess not.
Per discussion on the mailing list, we're removing the remove_pic branch
On Thursday 25 December 2008 23:29:28 Allison Randal via RT wrote:
CGP is too important to be deprecated over something as small as this.
If it were important, we'd test it and maintain the code. We don't, ergo
-- c
Will Coleda via RT wrote:
Apparently remove the files isn't exactly what was meant here. This probably removes the
need for the remove_pic branch, which is in the process of taking this to its literal extreme.
We do need to remove the files, and the remove_pic branch is on the
right track.
Will Coleda via RT wrote:
I created a branch (remove_pic) to remove src/pic.c; This led to the removal of pic.ops, and
changes in imc, packfile... lots of references to PIC.
chromatic mentioned on #parrot that if we remove PIC, we're going to break all the
predereferenced runcores. After
On Tue, 2008-12-23 at 17:31 -0800, Will Coleda via RT wrote:
chromatic mentioned on #parrot that if we remove PIC, we're going to break
all the
predereferenced runcores. After some discussion, this probably means ripping
out:
16:42 @chromatic Everything other than the default core, the
On Tuesday 23 December 2008 18:47:23 Geoffrey Broadwell wrote:
On the other hand, I'm somewhat concerned that Parrot 1.0 will either
itself be rather slow, or will architecturally force HLL implementations
to be slow. While looking for the IRC discussion mentioned by Coke, I
found the
