At least for now? Because I need to get strings working right, so I'm going to be implementing the encoding/charset library stuff, which is going to cause some major disruptions. (This'll probably touch the packfile stuff too, which ought to be fun...) -- Dan
--------------------------------------it's like this------------------- Dan Sugalski even samurai d...@sidhe.org have teddy bears and even teddy bears get drunk
Dan Sugalski <d...@sidhe.org> wrote: > At least for now?
Yep. A minute ago the last patch WRT indirect register addressing changes went in. What's still missing is now some optimization for reusing discarded chunks. But that's mostly restricted to register.c.
> ... Because I need to get strings working right, so I'm > going to be implementing the encoding/charset library stuff, which is > going to cause some major disruptions.
Ah good.
> ... (This'll probably touch the > packfile stuff too, which ought to be fun...)
> Because I need to get strings working right, so I'm going to be > implementing the encoding/charset library stuff, which is going to > cause some major disruptions.
>> On Nov 1, 2004, at 6:14 AM, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>>> Because I need to get strings working right, so I'm going to be >>> implementing the encoding/charset library stuff, which is going to >>> cause some major disruptions.
>> Please tag cvs before checking this in.
>Release candidate?
What, think this warrants a 0.1.2 release? I'm not so sure about that. It's not that big a deal... -- Dan
--------------------------------------it's like this------------------- Dan Sugalski even samurai d...@sidhe.org have teddy bears and even teddy bears get drunk
Dan Sugalski wrote: >Piers Cawley wrote: >>Jeff Clites <jcli...@mac.com> writes:
>>> On Nov 1, 2004, at 6:14 AM, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>>>> Because I need to get strings working right, so I'm going to be >>>> implementing the encoding/charset library stuff, which is going to >>>> cause some major disruptions.
>>> Please tag cvs before checking this in.
>>Release candidate?
>What, think this warrants a 0.1.2 release? I'm not so sure about that. >It's not that big a deal...
Weren't you the one calling them big changes?
What ever happened to: "release early, release often"?
To those lingering on the project's periphery, releases are one of the only measures of the project's vitality that they have. Just look at the new faces that pop in after a release. Who's going to argue that new blood isn't better than old lurkers like myself that have a long track record of well... not much?
Garrett
-- Garrett Goebel IS Development Specialist
ScriptPro Direct: 913.403.5261 5828 Reeds Road Main: 913.384.1008 Mission, KS 66202 Fax: 913.384.2180 www.scriptpro.com garrett at scriptpro dot com
>On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 13:35:09 -0500, Dan Sugalski <d...@sidhe.org> wrote: >> What, think this warrants a 0.1.2 release? I'm not so sure about >> that. It's not that big a deal...
>In the past week, Parrot has seen a dramatic speedup. We're in about >the best shape we've been in in the past 4 months:
Hrm. Okay, then, if I've not managed to make a mess of things with the stuff I've been doing, why don't we do a 0.1.2 performance release? Between the speedups and the gentler effects of -t it seems likely to be worth it for people who're working with parrot to do stuff. (Better -t definitely makes debugging a *lot* less painful...) -- Dan
--------------------------------------it's like this------------------- Dan Sugalski even samurai d...@sidhe.org have teddy bears and even teddy bears get drunk
Dan Sugalski <d...@sidhe.org> wrote: > At 4:38 PM -0500 11/4/04, Matt Diephouse wrote: >>On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 13:35:09 -0500, Dan Sugalski <d...@sidhe.org> wrote: >>> What, think this warrants a 0.1.2 release? I'm not so sure about >>> that. It's not that big a deal...
>>In the past week, Parrot has seen a dramatic speedup. We're in about >>the best shape we've been in in the past 4 months:
Raw function calling speed demonstrated by {oo,}fib [1] isn't there, where it should. But fixing this needs some bigger changes. Anyway I'm glad that the numbers indicate that the indirect register addressing is the way to go.
[1] AFAIK a non-recursive benchmark is missing. Is it possible to get timings for older versions for 3 TODO benchmarks:
Calling some nested functions and returning 1 result repeatedly. One for PMC-only args/returns, one for int, and one for all 4 kinds of registers.
> Hrm. Okay, then, if I've not managed to make a mess of things with > the stuff I've been doing, why don't we do a 0.1.2 performance > release? Between the speedups and the gentler effects of -t it seems > likely to be worth it for people who're working with parrot to do > stuff.
|
