On Wed, Nov 07, 2001 at 05:15:14PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
*) The program is fully parsed
*) There are no string eval, do, or requires
*) There are no symbolic references on the LHS of any assignment
*) There is no use of MY within the block or in any subs c
At 07:27 PM 11/8/2001 -0500, Ken Fox wrote:
>Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > Gack. Looks like a mis-placed optimization in perl 5. The list of a
> foreach
> > is *supposed* to flatten at loop start and be static. Apparently not. :)
>
>Is anybody keeping a list of things that are *supposed* to be static?
Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Gack. Looks like a mis-placed optimization in perl 5. The list of a foreach
> is *supposed* to flatten at loop start and be static. Apparently not. :)
Is anybody keeping a list of things that are *supposed* to be static? Is
the list changing much with Perl 6?
> Care to fil
On Thu, 8 Nov 2001, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Yes, it is a bug. There's an array in list context--it's supposed to be
> flattened before the foreach loop gets evaluated. (And if there are
> multiple arrays in the list it works as you'd expect)
Sorry, I quoted the wrong section. It really isn't a bu
At 05:41 PM 11/8/2001 -0500, Sam Tregar wrote:
>On Thu, 8 Nov 2001, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> > Gack. Looks like a mis-placed optimization in perl 5. The list of a foreach
> > is *supposed* to flatten at loop start and be static. Apparently not. :)
> >
> > Care to file the perl 5 bug report, or shal
On Thu, 8 Nov 2001, Brent Dax wrote:
> That doesn't support your argument. The point is that in the statement:
>
> foreach(@array) {
> ...
> }
>
> @array should only be evaluated once, at the beginning of the loop. In
> effect (using := here, but otherwise Perl 5 code)
Sam Tregar
# On Thu, 8 Nov 2001, Dan Sugalski wrote:
#
# > Gack. Looks like a mis-placed optimization in perl 5. The
# list of a foreach
# > is *supposed* to flatten at loop start and be static.
# Apparently not. :)
# >
# > Care to file the perl 5 bug report, or shall I?
#
# It's not a bug. Check
On Thu, 8 Nov 2001, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Gack. Looks like a mis-placed optimization in perl 5. The list of a foreach
> is *supposed* to flatten at loop start and be static. Apparently not. :)
>
> Care to file the perl 5 bug report, or shall I?
It's not a bug. Check out the "Foreach Loops" sect
At 07:53 PM 11/7/2001 -0500, Ken Fox wrote:
>Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > No it isn't. It can get the integer length of the array and stuff it in a
> > register at the beginning of the loop, or do an integer compare when it
> > needs to, depending on the semantics of the loop.
>
>Wow. Did you just come
Michael Fischer:
# On Nov 04, Brent Dax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> took up a keyboard
# and banged out
# > Michael Fischer:
# > # In the goto case, we spin. And perhaps I am broken there. End
# > # really wants to return, not just set the pc, but I hadn't thought
# > # of a clever way to do that corner c
Yes, and thanks to Michael Fischer I'm already working on that as I
described on a previos mail. I hope to post it in a few hours.
Daniel Grunblatt.
On Sun, 4 Nov 2001, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 02:45 PM 11/4/2001 -0300, Daniel Grunblatt wrote:
> >Sure, I alredy knew that, may be I'm just having
At 02:45 PM 11/4/2001 -0300, Daniel Grunblatt wrote:
>Sure, I alredy knew that, may be I'm just having a hard time to make my
>self clear.
>
>What I mean was:
>
>On those unixes, with cc (NOT GCC), that Benoit Cerrina pointed, Can we
>use computed goto?
No. And Unix generally doesn't enter into i
Sure, I alredy knew that, may be I'm just having a hard time to make my
self clear.
What I mean was:
On those unixes, with cc (NOT GCC), that Benoit Cerrina pointed, Can we
use computed goto?
or in other words:
Is there any other compiler besides gcc that implements computed goto?
Daniel Grun
At 02:37 PM 11/4/2001 -0300, Daniel Grunblatt wrote:
>So, on those other unixes that come with cc we can't use computed goto?
Computed goto is, at the moment, a GCC-specific feature. It's not OS
specific, just compiler-specific.
Dan
-
So, on those other unixes that come with cc we can't use computed goto?
Daniel Grunblatt.
On Sun, 4 Nov 2001, Benoit Cerrina wrote:
>
>
> > I think your approuch is much better and cleaner than mine, my brain was
> > limited to unix :) so I never worried about anything besides gcc.
> > It would
At 02:33 PM 11/4/2001 -0300, Daniel Grunblatt wrote:
>Did you put an eye on my implementation? what's the point in using
>computed goto when tracing, checking bounds or profiling?
There's not a huge amount of win over a switch, but there is a benefit over
the function dispatch method.
Did you put an eye on my implementation? what's the point in using
computed goto when tracing, checking bounds or profiling?
Daniel Grunblatt.
On Sun, 4 Nov 2001, Michael Fischer wrote:
> On Nov 04, Brent Dax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> took up a keyboard and banged out
> > Michael Fischer:
> > # In th
> I think your approuch is much better and cleaner than mine, my brain was
> limited to unix :) so I never worried about anything besides gcc.
> It would also be nice if you can decide which dispatch method use instead
> of asking.
Hum, I think you mean linux, maybe BSD, but the other unixes com
On Nov 04, Brent Dax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> took up a keyboard and banged out
> Michael Fischer:
> # In the goto case, we spin. And perhaps I am broken there. End
> # really wants to return, not just set the pc, but I hadn't thought
> # of a clever way to do that corner case, and wanted to see what
>
Michael Fischer:
# In the goto case, we spin. And perhaps I am broken there. End
# really wants to return, not just set the pc, but I hadn't thought
# of a clever way to do that corner case, and wanted to see what
# the behavior would be without it. I suspect I need it.
Can't you just break()?
-
On Nov 04, Daniel Grunblatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> took up a keyboard and banged out
>
>
> On Sun, 4 Nov 2001, Michael Fischer wrote:
>
> > On Nov 04, Daniel Grunblatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> took up a keyboard and
>banged out
> > > I really suggest that you do a do_op.c and a do_op.h and that you c
On Sun, 4 Nov 2001, Michael Fischer wrote:
> On Nov 04, Daniel Grunblatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> took up a keyboard and banged
>out
> > First of all you miss typed:
> > -if ($c{do_opt_t} eq 'goto' and $c{cc} !~ /gcc/i ) {
> > +if ($c{do_op_t} eq 'goto' and $c{cc} !~ /cc/i ) {
>
> hmm. Thats not wh
At 12:19 PM 11/4/2001 -0500, Michael Fischer wrote:
>On Nov 04, Daniel Grunblatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> took up a keyboard
>and banged out
> > First of all you miss typed:
> > -if ($c{do_opt_t} eq 'goto' and $c{cc} !~ /gcc/i ) {
> > +if ($c{do_op_t} eq 'goto' and $c{cc} !~ /cc/i ) {
>
>hmm. Thats no
On Nov 04, Daniel Grunblatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> took up a keyboard and banged out
> First of all you miss typed:
> -if ($c{do_opt_t} eq 'goto' and $c{cc} !~ /gcc/i ) {
> +if ($c{do_op_t} eq 'goto' and $c{cc} !~ /cc/i ) {
hmm. Thats not what my diff has. Point is, if you chose
'goto', $c{cc} /isn'
First of all you miss typed:
-if ($c{do_opt_t} eq 'goto' and $c{cc} !~ /gcc/i ) {
+if ($c{do_op_t} eq 'goto' and $c{cc} !~ /cc/i ) {
On Sat, 3 Nov 2001, Michael Fischer wrote:
> Ok, attached dispatch.diff is the smallest changes
> I could think of to get a Configure.pl time choice
> for func/sw
25 matches
Mail list logo
