Adam Thomason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 11:38:11 +0100, Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Adam Thomason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > Now to figure out why the JIT code segfaults...
When does it segfault: always? during begin or end of JIT code?
>> Broken AB
On Wed, Nov 10, 2004 at 03:03:38AM -, Will Coleda via RT wrote:
> This is now obsolete, neh?
Yes. I'll close it.
Nicholas Clark
Stéphane Payrard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> - the parser doesn't like empty subs or compilation units:
Thanks, applied plus some whitespace cosmetics and test adaption.
leo
i'd like to find a language with object support that i can write
mod_parrot handlers with. as far as i can see, none of the bundled
languages currently support parrot objects, but since not everything is
bundled with parrot, i thought i'd ask around.
i know dan was tinkering with the idea of usin
Andrew Rodland wrote:
On Monday 08 November 2004 06:50 pm, Christian Lott wrote:
Having a little trouble with vim.
I think the problem is that imc.vim.in needs to go through ops2vim.
C:\parrot\editor>perl ops2vim.pl imc.vim.in imc.vim
Can't open imc.vim: No such file or directory at ops2vim.pl l
Christian Lott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The only ops directory I have is under the docs directory. I assume
> ops2vim will parse it:
No. It's in the sources.
> Christian
leo
I was thinking: Implementing tail calls seems easy; the normal calling
sequence of "do some setup, then jump" just turns into "don't bother
with (most of) the setup, just jump". That is, don't move a new
register base-pointer into place, etc.
But there's one wiggle: If you've created a continua
Scheme is a counterexample, it supports both mandatory tail calls &
continuations.
I've no idea how stuff is implemented in Parrot, but an obvious idea
would be to have some kind of lazy copying scheme (i.e. maintain a
reference count for the stack frames & copy the respective one before
mutating
Jeff~
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 10:40:45 -0800, Jeff Clites <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was thinking: Implementing tail calls seems easy; the normal calling
> sequence of "do some setup, then jump" just turns into "don't bother
> with (most of) the setup, just jump". That is, don't move a new
> regis
Jeff Clites <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But there's one wiggle: If you've created a continuation previously
> (and it still exists), then any call has to preserve the frame
Well, that's what continuations are doing. They do preserve the frame,
which they have taken a snapshot of. And they preser
Is it sufficient to provide a mechanism for the compiler writers to indicate
that tail call should be used? For example, I have a few cases in tcl where I
have something like:
($I0,$P0) = interpret($P1)
.return($I0,$P0)
Where I'd be happy to have to write:
.return_tailcall(interpret($P1))
or s
Hi,
I am trying to pass a string, containing YAML, from Parrot to the shared
library 'libsyck'.
'libsyck' provides two functions:
void syck_parser_str( SyckParser *, char *, long, SyckIoStrRead ); (
v_ptip )
SYMID syck_parse( SyckParser * ); ( i_p
)
'syc
At 12:00 AM +0100 11/11/04, Bernhard Schmalhofer wrote:
From strings.pod I gather that the op 'pin' is meant to make strings fit
for
passing strings to external libraries. For me it would be convenient, if
'pin' would put a trailing '\0' at the end of the used string buffer. Also a
pinned string s
Still in the pluggable_encodings branch, but more stuff's in.
The good news is that only 17 tests fail, 9 of them specifically in
the unicode string set. And since this nukes unicode (temporarily)
that's OK.
The bad news is that there are globals. Ick. That needs fixing.
If you want to fiddle, o
On Nov 10, 2004, at 3:08 PM, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Jeff Clites <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But there's one wiggle: If you've created a continuation previously
(and it still exists), then any call has to preserve the frame
Well, that's what continuations are doing. They do preserve the frame,
which
15 matches
Mail list logo
