[perl #36266] [BUG] perldoc -d

# New Ticket Created by Leopold Toetsch # Please include the string: [perl #36266] # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue. # https://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=36266 > perldoc -ud packfile-c.pod ../src/packfile.c Unknow option -d leo

Re: Attack of the fifty foot register allocator vs. the undead continuation monster

On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 03:03:24PM -0400, Matt Fowles wrote: > 3) Chip is right, Piers is right. The two of you have are working from > a different base set of definitions/axioms or misunderstood each other > in some other way. Historically, (pre Perl 6 actually) I think that this scenario was th

Re: Attack of the fifty foot register allocator vs. the undead continuation monster

On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 09:41:05PM -0700, Bill Coffman wrote: > Continuations can be taken from within any sub, and possibly even > when appending to a list, if you're using lazy list eval. Oh no ... it's even worse than you think. Almost *any* opcode that operates on a PMC can trigger a continua

Re: Attack of the fifty foot register allocator vs. the undead continuation monster

On 6/13/05, Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Oh no ... it's even worse than you think. Almost *any* opcode that > operates on a PMC can trigger a continuation. And I only need two > words to prove it: > > "Tied variables." Isn't this *exactly* why Perl 6 is requiring you to mark tie

Re: Attack of the fifty foot register allocator vs. the undead continuation monster

On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 09:21:00AM -0700, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote: > On 6/13/05, Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Oh no ... it's even worse than you think. Almost *any* opcode that > > operates on a PMC can trigger a continuation. And I only need two > > words to prove it: >

Re: Attack of the fifty foot register allocator vs. the undead continuation monster

On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 09:21:00AM -0700, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote: > On 6/13/05, Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Oh no ... it's even worse than you think. Almost *any* opcode that > > operates on a PMC can trigger a continuation. And I only need two > > words to prove it: >

Re: Attack of the fifty foot register allocator vs. the undead continuation monster

On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 12:37:52AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote: > On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 09:21:00AM -0700, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote: > > On 6/13/05, Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Oh no ... it's even worse than you think. Almost *any* opcode that > > > operates on a PMC can

Re: Attack of the fifty foot register allocator vs. the undead continuation monster

On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 06:52:35PM +0200, Chip Salzenberg wrote: > > > Isn't this *exactly* why Perl 6 is requiring you to mark tied > > > variables when they're declared? > > > > Yes. > > Um: > >my $x is tied; >tied $x, SomePackage; >unsuspecting_victim(\$x); # ??? Hmm, you can't

[perl #36269] Alignment problems with doubles on SPARC.

# New Ticket Created by Andy Dougherty # Please include the string: [perl #36269] # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue. # https://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=36269 > As discussed in http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl6.internals/29984 a parr

Re: [perl #36269] Alignment problems with doubles on SPARC.

Andy Dougherty (via RT) wrote: ... On SPARC, doubles should be aligned on 8-bit boundaries. The speculation is that the _num_val part of the UnionVal in the PMC ends up unaligned. However, I couldn't follow where that happened, so I can't suggest a patch. It happends directly in the PMC mem

Re: [perl #36269] Alignment problems with doubles on SPARC.

On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 07:12:48PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote: > Andy Dougherty (via RT) wrote: > >... On SPARC, doubles should be aligned on 8-bit boundaries. > >The speculation is that the _num_val part of the UnionVal in the PMC > >ends up unaligned. However, I couldn't follow where that hap

Re: [perl #36269] Alignment problems with doubles on SPARC.

Chip Salzenberg wrote: On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 07:12:48PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote: Andy Dougherty (via RT) wrote: ... On SPARC, doubles should be aligned on 8-bit boundaries. The speculation is that the _num_val part of the UnionVal in the PMC ends up unaligned. However, I couldn't fol

Re: [perl #36269] Alignment problems with doubles on SPARC.

On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 07:29:53PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote: > The PMC allocation area is a big bunch of memory, where PMC-sized > pieces are carved out by the memory allocation system. There is no > union or compiler bug involved. But "PMC-sized" is defined in terms of the C sizeof operator,

Re: [perl #36269] Alignment problems with doubles on SPARC.

Chip Salzenberg wrote: On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 07:29:53PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote: The PMC allocation area is a big bunch of memory, where PMC-sized pieces are carved out by the memory allocation system. There is no union or compiler bug involved. But "PMC-sized" is defined in terms of

Re: [perl #36269] Alignment problems with doubles on SPARC.

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005, Leopold Toetsch via RT wrote: > Chip Salzenberg wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 07:12:48PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote: > > > >>Andy Dougherty (via RT) wrote: > >> > >>>... On SPARC, doubles should be aligned on 8-bit boundaries. > >>>The speculation is that the _num_val

Re: [perl #36269] Alignment problems with doubles on SPARC.

On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 08:38:30PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote: > Chip Salzenberg wrote: > >On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 07:29:53PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote: > >>The PMC allocation area is a big bunch of memory, where PMC-sized > >>pieces are carved out by the memory allocation system. There is no

Re: [perl #36269] Alignment problems with doubles on SPARC.

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005, Chip Salzenberg via RT wrote: > On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 08:38:30PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote: > > Chip Salzenberg wrote: > > >On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 07:29:53PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote: > > >>The PMC allocation area is a big bunch of memory, where PMC-sized > > >>piece

Re: [perl #36269] Alignment problems with doubles on SPARC.

On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 02:57:09PM -0400, Andy Dougherty wrote: > On Mon, 13 Jun 2005, Chip Salzenberg via RT wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 08:38:30PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote: > > > Chip Salzenberg wrote: > > > >On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 07:29:53PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote: > > > >>T

Re: [perl #36269] Alignment problems with doubles on SPARC.

Chip Salzenberg wrote: On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 02:57:09PM -0400, Andy Dougherty wrote: Yes. The compiler does the right thing. It sensibly reports that sizeof(PMC) = 24 for SPARC. Then I remain puzzled how Parrot could ever misalign a double. Yes. So I am. Could somone please run this P

Re: [perl #36269] Alignment problems with doubles on SPARC.

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005, Leopold Toetsch via RT wrote: > Chip Salzenberg wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 02:57:09PM -0400, Andy Dougherty wrote: > > >>Yes. The compiler does the right thing. It sensibly reports > >>that sizeof(PMC) = 24 for SPARC. > > > > Then I remain puzzled how Parrot could

Hackathon Day 2+3 Report

I've posted a report on the Hackathon Days 2+3 as a journal entry on use.perl.org: http://use.perl.org/~chip/journal/25182 I'm not going to copy it here, but you probably want to read it, if only because it will point you to AN UPDATED PDD. Really. -- Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: Hackathon Day 2+3 Report

On 6/13/05, Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I've posted a report on the Hackathon Days 2+3 as a journal entry on > use.perl.org : > > http://use.perl.org/~chip/journal/25182 > > I'm not going to copy it here, but you probably want to read it, if > only because

[perl #36277] [TODO] Tcl's [interpinfo name]

# New Ticket Created by Will Coleda # Please include the string: [perl #36277] # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue. # https://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=36277 > Need parrot support before this can be implemented.

PDD03: The new boss

From: Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 00:04:54 +0200 . . . you probably want to read it, if only because it will point you to AN UPDATED PDD. Really. Great! Pardon the typing; it's hard when my head is spinning . . . FWIW, there is one thing that jumps

Re: Building Parrot with MinGW, ActivePerl & command.com

At 12:19 10/06/2005 +0200, you wrote: On Saturday 04 June 2005 20:29, Clement Cherlin wrote: > I include a patch I made for the above problems. Some of the changes are > kind of kludgey, so I would appreciate comments and suggestions on how to > improve them. Thanks, applied. Please, revert thi