Melvin Smith:
> [msmith@linux parrot]$ time perl newasm examples/assembly/mops.pasm >
> mops.pbc
I saw this much, and was ready to leap to the defence of newasm, pointing
out that it was only a dumb reference implementation, that it deliberately
had several redundant passes over the data, that i
On Fri, Mar 15, 2002 at 06:10:11PM -0500, Simon Glover wrote:
>
> On Fri, 15 Mar 2002, Simon Cozens wrote:
>
> > You didn't resync. I just updated packout.c to take this function out.
> > There's a reason step 1 included CVS updating. :)
>
> Yep, just figured that out for myself - I rsync'd, r
I've just added Clinton Pierce's Parrot-based XML parser to the distribution.
Take a look at it, it's quite insane!
--
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on
your computer." --Bruce Graham
I'd like to release 0.0.4 today or tomorrow, but I don't currently
have enough test results from a wide enough variety of platforms to
determine whether or not we're fit to release. If you're running on
anything that's not Linux x86, now is the time to send in test results.
Thanks,
Simon
--
I r
The test suites used to have the useful property that failing tests
would leave .out, .pasm and .pbc files lying around. This made debugging
the tests really quite easy. Someone obviously thought that this was
somehow unclean, and modified the test suite to delete them. Can whoever
it was please p
Well, there's a bummer. The following code segfaults Tru64.
set S0, "ba"
rx_allocinfo P0, S0
rx_setprops P0, "", 0
rx_succeed P0
rx_info_getstartindex P0, I1
rx_info_getindex P0, I2
len
On Sat, Mar 16, 2002 at 11:50:31AM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
> I'd like to release 0.0.4 today or tomorrow, but I don't currently
> have enough test results from a wide enough variety of platforms to
> determine whether or not we're fit to release. If you're running on
> anything that's not Linux
with borland compiler:
All tests successful, 20 subtests skipped.
Files=19, Tests=313, 294 wallclock secs ( 0.00 cusr + 0.00 csys = 0.00 CPU)
with the redmond compiler:
All tests successful, 20 subtests skipped.
Files=19, Tests=313, 358 wallclock secs ( 0.00 cusr + 0.00 csys = 0.00 CPU)
FreeBSD 4.5 / gcc:
All tests successful, 20 subtests skipped.
Files=19, Tests=313, 343 wallclock secs (230.79 cusr + 21.33 csys = 252.12 CPU)
Irix 6.5 / MIPSPro:
(After a little Makefile.in fix)
All tests successful, 20 subtests skipped.
Files=19, Tests=313, 345 wallclock secs (292.12 cusr + 36.
At 12:48 PM + 3/16/02, Simon Cozens wrote:
>Well, there's a bummer. The following code segfaults Tru64.
I'll look into that now.
--
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski ev
Simon Cozens:
# The test suites used to have the useful property that failing tests
# would leave .out, .pasm and .pbc files lying around. This
# made debugging
# the tests really quite easy. Someone obviously thought that this was
# somehow unclean, and modified the test suite to delete them.
#
At 8:00 AM -0800 3/16/02, Brent Dax wrote:
>Simon Cozens:
># The test suites used to have the useful property that failing tests
># would leave .out, .pasm and .pbc files lying around. This
># made debugging
># the tests really quite easy. Someone obviously thought that this was
># somehow unclean
On Fri, Mar 15, 2002 at 06:10:11PM -0500, Simon Glover wrote:
> With a proper fresh checkout, everything builds OK here, but I've run
> into another problem: Parrot::Assembler:Utils uses Text::Balanced, but
> that's not a core module in 5.6.x and earlier. Weren't we trying to
> stay compatibl
applied.
At 16:01 on 03/16/2002 GMT, Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2002 at 06:10:11PM -0500, Simon Glover wrote:
> > With a proper fresh checkout, everything builds OK here, but I've run
> > into another problem: Parrot::Assembler:Utils uses Text::Balanced, but
>
And make immortal Buffers and PMCs. It's a nasty hack, but it solves
the "what happens if I allocate a bunch of PMCs and the DOD collects
them before I can use them" problem.
Now'd be a good time to object if you've a better option. :)
--
Dan
-
Using Debian's 5.6.1 build...
All tests successful, 20 subtests skipped.
Files=19, Tests=313, 379 wallclock secs (309.75 cusr + 54.29 csys = 364.04 CPU)
but I do get some warnings.
cc -DDEBIAN -fno-strict-aliasing -I/usr/local/include -D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE
-D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -Wall -Wstrict-
This is parrot built using a 5.6.1 with 64 bit integers. The tests
pass ok, but there's a heap of warnings in the build. Here's the
complete make output.
perl5.6.1 vtable_h.pl
perl5.6.1 make_vtable_ops.pl > vtable.ops
perl5.6.1 ops2c.pl C core.ops io.ops rx.ops vtable.ops
include/parrot/oplib/
Using 5.005_03 on OpenVMS 7.3...
Determining if your C compiler is actually gcc (this could take a while):
Your C compiler is not gcc.
Probing Perl 5's configuration to determine which headers you have (this could
take a while on slow machines)...
Out of memory!
%SYSTEM-F-ABORT, abort
--
Please folks, both for parrot's stability and my sanity, be careful
when writing code. Keep threads, GC, and multiple interpreters in
mind.
That means:
1) NO STATIC VARIABLES! EVER!
2) Don't hold on to pointers to memory across calls to routines that
might call the GC.
3) Don't hold on to poi
I thought I'd try out newasm on the test suite - this is how we do:
Failed Test Status Wstat Total Fail Failed List of failed
-
t/op/basic.t 2 512 82 25.00% 3, 7
t/op/bitwise.t 15 384015 15 100.00% 1-15
I'm a bit confused about the relationship between PDD6 and Simon's new
Assembler PDD. Is the latter supposed to replace the former, or are
they supposed to be addressing different aspects of Parrot Assembler?
Simon
Now's your time to speak up, please.
--
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
Enclosed patch gets rid of these warnings:
default.pmc: In function `Parrot_default_get_integer_keyed':
default.pmc:50: warning: control reaches end of non-void function
default.pmc: In function `Parrot_default_get_number_keyed':
default.pmc:58: warning: control reaches end of non-void func
Can you check what is the sizeof(INTVAL) and sizeof(void*)?
Some warnings should not have happened.
Hong
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael G Schwern [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 10:24 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: 64 bit Debian Linux/PowerPC OK
> 1) NO STATIC VARIABLES! EVER!
> 2) Don't hold on to pointers to memory across calls to routines that
> might call the GC.
> 3) Don't hold on to pointers to allocated PMCs that aren't accessible
> from the root set
I don't think the rule #2 and #3 can be achieved without systematic
effort. In
On Sat, Mar 16, 2002 at 02:36:45PM -0800, Hong Zhang wrote:
>
> Can you check what is the sizeof(INTVAL) and sizeof(void*)?
> Some warnings should not have happened.
(Note: Not a C programmer)
INTVAL? I can't find where its defined.
int main (void) {
printf("int %d, long long %d,
On Sat, Mar 16, 2002 at 05:06:04PM -0500, Simon Glover wrote:
>
> Enclosed patch gets rid of these warnings:
Thanks, applied.
> INTVAL get_integer_keyed (KEY * key) {
> internal_exception(OUT_OF_BOUNDS, "Subscript on something that's not an
>aggregate!\n");
> + return 0;
I'd no
At 04:34 PM 3/16/2002 -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>Now's your time to speak up, please.
Well I was about to try to add simple regexes to my
little language before checking in the first version.
I think one of the reasons noone is using them is noone
likes to compile regexes in their head.
Are yo
Makes ok, alignment warnings. Tests run ok. Most warnings are
from -Wpadded. I was able to eliminate 1 or 2 by rearranging
members in structs, but some are due to unions of different size
types.
We can either turn off -Wpadded or manually pad the structs
by changing types or adding placeholders (
Simon Cozens wrote:
> If you're running on anything that's not Linux x86, now is the time to
> send in test results.
Windows 2000, MSVS++ 6: 'All tests successful, 20 subtests skipped.'
But I get some compiler warnings, mostly about local variables used
without initilaization...
--
Seb
30 matches
Mail list logo
