Are we done with big changes?
Dan Sugalski
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
Leopold Toetsch
> 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...)
Not much. It'll just revert to a pre-ICU state.
leo
Jeff Clites
> 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.
Thanks,
JEff
Dan Sugalski
What, think this warrants a 0.1.2 release? I'm not so sure about
that. It's not that big a deal...
Garrett Goebel
>Piers Cawley wrote:
>>Jeff Clites <jcl...@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
Leopold Toetsch
> Dan Sugalski wrote:
>>Piers Cawley wrote:
>>>
>>>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?
Tagging CVS can be helpful before committing bigger changes. Its
independent from a release.
> What ever happened to: "release early, release often"?
The last gap was an exception. We'll release in an approximately quarterly
interval. Last release is just 1 month ago.
> Garrett
leo
Dan Sugalski
>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...
>
>the best shape we've been in in the past 4 months:
>
> http://www.sidhe.org/~timeparrot/graphs/A/sum.png
>
>Seems like a pretty big deal.
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...)
Leopold Toetsch
> 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:
>>
>> http://www.sidhe.org/~timeparrot/graphs/A/sum.png
>>
>>Seems like a pretty big deal.
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.
Or wait for the new register allocator?
leo