[PROPOSAL] for a new calling scheme
Dan Sugalski
Alright, that does it. I am *tired* of this. I'm tired of the
sniping, I'm tired of the constant attempts to change decisions that
have been made, I'm tired of the pecking away at things you don't
don't like and won't deal with, and I'm tired of all the backhand
snide comments.
What part of "This stuff isn't going to change" hasn't been clear?
This. Is. Not. Changing. Period.
I don't give a damn if you don't like it. Cope.
--
Dan
--------------------------------------it's like this-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
d...@sidhe.org have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
Stéphane Payrard
> At 11:43 AM +0100 11/16/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> >Below inline/attached is a proposal for new calling conventions -
> >for the archive as Dan doesn't like changes now, but I haven't to
> >backup it, when its out ;)
>
> Alright, that does it. I am *tired* of this. I'm tired of the
> sniping, I'm tired of the constant attempts to change decisions that
> have been made, I'm tired of the pecking away at things you don't
> don't like and won't deal with, and I'm tired of all the backhand
> snide comments.
>
> What part of "This stuff isn't going to change" hasn't been clear?
>
> This. Is. Not. Changing. Period.
>
> I don't give a damn if you don't like it. Cope.
Probably, the timing of the proposition is wrong. But having
Leo thinking out loud and putting out propositions is a good
way for less trained people to learn about the current behavior
of parrot, its strengths and deficiencies.
Also, as we expect code written and generated for
parrot to grow faster in the months to come , it may good to
prepare people for possible future changes in calling
conventions. Personnally I am all for writing and generating PIR
so as to insulate code from the said changes.
Putting your architect hat, Dan, can you spell a policy in this matter?
--
stef
Leopold Toetsch
> What part of "This stuff isn't going to change" hasn't been clear?
Your sentence below answering Matt's question about dismissing my
arguments lightly?
There is quite a difference between "not change. Period" and "not change
now".
At 2:15 PM -0500 11/8/04, Matt Fowles wrote:
> Dan~
>
> On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 13:45:08 -0500, Dan Sugalski <d...@sidhe.org> wrote:
>
>> The calling conventions and code surrounding them will *not* change
>> now. When all the sub stuff, and the things that depend on it, are
>> fully specified and implemented... *then* we can consider changes.
>> Until then, things stand the way they are.
>
>
> I missunderstood. I though you were saying that what is currently in
> is final and will *never* be changed. Thanks for the clarification.
Ah, OK. I was unclear, then. Sorry for the confusion.
---------
leo
Stéphane Payrard
> At 4:48 PM +0100 11/16/04, Stéphane Payrard wrote:
> >Putting your architect hat, Dan, can you spell a policy in this matter?
>
>
> The calling conventions are fixed. They are not going to change
> again.
You are not answering my question about the preferred assembler for code
generators and hand-programmes (PIR or PASM).
It was addmittedly asked in the context of calling conventions,
but may be it deserves to be answered independantly of this.
--
stef
> --
> Dan
Dan Sugalski
>Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
>>What part of "This stuff isn't going to change" hasn't been clear?
>
>Your sentence below answering Matt's question about dismissing my
>arguments lightly?
>
>There is quite a difference between "not change. Period" and "not change now".
Then I should amend things.
The calling conventions are fixed. They are not going to be revisited. Period.
Leopold Toetsch
> Probably, the timing of the proposition is wrong.
I'd appreciate a discussion about the mentioned issues, which are
serious in my opinion. These issues have to be addressed, sooner or
later.
I didn't propose to make changes now, just the opposite.
leo
Dan Sugalski
>Stéphane Payrard <st...@payrard.net> wrote:
>
>> Probably, the timing of the proposition is wrong.
>
>I'd appreciate a discussion about the mentioned issues
An updated PDD 03 is in the repository. It's
clear on what the caller populates, what the
callee sees, and what happens to all the
different registers.
This incoporates the discussion to date. It is final.
Matt Fowles
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 12:22:23 -0500, Dan Sugalski <d...@sidhe.org> wrote:
> An updated PDD 03 is in the repository. It's
> clear on what the caller populates, what the
> callee sees, and what happens to all the
> different registers.
At line 72, "Note that fact if a return continuation object is created
explicitly, rather than by an invocation op," what is the remainder of
this sentence?
Thanks,
Matt
--
"Computer Science is merely the post-Turing Decline of Formal Systems Theory."
-???
Matt Fowles
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 13:00:39 -0500, Dan Sugalski <d...@sidhe.org> wrote:
> At 12:56 PM -0500 11/16/04, Matt Fowles wrote:
> >At line 72, "Note that fact if a return continuation object is created
> >explicitly, rather than by an invocation op," what is the remainder of
> >this sentence?
>
> Now checked into CVS.
Earlier in that same paragraph you state that "registers 16-31 will be
set...". To which groups of registers are you referring, P or (I,S,P,
and N)?
I don't mean to be trouble some, I am just trying to make sure it is
clear and I understand it.
Matt Fowles
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 13:14:00 -0500, Dan Sugalski <d...@sidhe.org> wrote:
> At 1:11 PM -0500 11/16/04, Matt Fowles wrote:
>
>
> >Dan~
> >
> >On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 13:00:39 -0500, Dan Sugalski <d...@sidhe.org> wrote:
> >> At 12:56 PM -0500 11/16/04, Matt Fowles wrote:
> >> >At line 72, "Note that fact if a return continuation object is created
> >> >explicitly, rather than by an invocation op," what is the remainder of
> >> >this sentence?
> >>
> >> Now checked into CVS.
> >
> >Earlier in that same paragraph you state that "registers 16-31 will be
> >set...". To which groups of registers are you referring, P or (I,S,P,
> >and N)?
>
> All of them. Clarification on its way in.
Thanks, I think I have run out of nits....
Dan Sugalski
>
>
>On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 12:22:23 -0500, Dan Sugalski <d...@sidhe.org> wrote:
>> An updated PDD 03 is in the repository. It's
>> clear on what the caller populates, what the
>> callee sees, and what happens to all the
>> different registers.
>
>At line 72, "Note that fact if a return continuation object is created
>explicitly, rather than by an invocation op," what is the remainder of
>this sentence?
Now checked into CVS.
--- pdd03_calling_conventions.pod 16 Nov 2004 17:15:08 -0000 1.23
+++ pdd03_calling_conventions.pod 16 Nov 2004 17:50:01 -0000 1.24
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
# Copyright: 2001-2004 The Perl Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
-# $Id: pdd03_calling_conventions.pod,v 1.23 2004/11/16 17:15:08 dan Exp $
+# $Id: pdd03_calling_conventions.pod,v 1.24 2004/11/16 17:50:01 dan Exp $
=head1 NAME
@@ -70,7 +70,10 @@
16-31 will be set such that the contents of those registers are
identical to the content of the registers when the return continuation
was I<created>. Note that if a return continuation object is created
-explicitly, rather than by an invocation op,
+explicitly, rather than by an invocation op, the preserved registers
+will be in the state they were at the time the continuation was made,
+rather than the state they were at the time the continuation was
+passed into an invocation.
Dan Sugalski
>Dan~
>
>On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 13:00:39 -0500, Dan Sugalski <d...@sidhe.org> wrote:
>> At 12:56 PM -0500 11/16/04, Matt Fowles wrote:
>> >At line 72, "Note that fact if a return continuation object is created
>> >explicitly, rather than by an invocation op," what is the remainder of
>> >this sentence?
>>
>> Now checked into CVS.
>
>Earlier in that same paragraph you state that "registers 16-31 will be
>set...". To which groups of registers are you referring, P or (I,S,P,
>and N)?
All of them. Clarification on its way in.