[#7043] RUBYOPT versioning? — Caleb Tennis <caleb@...>
Matz, others:
[#7050] RDoc patches for BigDecimal in Ruby CVS — mathew <meta@...>
Now that 1.8.4 is out and the initial flurry of problem reports has died
[#7055] More on VC++ 2005 — Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...>
Okay. I've got Ruby compiling. I'm attempting to get everything in
Hi,
On 05/01/06, nobuyoshi nakada <nobuyoshi.nakada@ge.com> wrote:
On 06/01/06, Austin Ziegler <halostatue@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
On 09/01/06, nobuyoshi nakada <nobuyoshi.nakada@ge.com> wrote:
[#7057] 64-bit Solaris READ_DATA_PENDING Revisited — Steven Lumos <steven@...>
[#7078] CRC - a proof-of-concept Ruby compiler — Anders Hkersten <chucky@...>
Hello everyone,
[#7084] mathn: ugly warnings — hadmut@... (Hadmut Danisch)
Hi,
Hadmut Danisch wrote:
Daniel Berger wrote:
*Dean Wampler *<deanwampler gmail.com> writes:
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, mathew wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
ara.t.howard@noaa.gov wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, James Britt wrote:
Dean Wampler <deanwampler gmail.com> writes:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006, mathew wrote:
[#7100] core dump with ruby 1.9.0 (2006-01-10) and bdb-0.5.8 — Tanaka Akira <akr@...17n.org>
I found following test script dumps core.
>>>>> "T" == Tanaka Akira <akr@m17n.org> writes:
In article <200601110905.k0B950Op001713@moulon.inra.fr>,
[#7109] Calling flock with block? — Bertram Scharpf <lists@...>
Hi,
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006, Bertram Scharpf wrote:
[#7129] YAML.load({[]=>""}.to_yaml) — Tanaka Akira <akr@...17n.org>
I found that current YAML doesn't round trip {[]=>""}.
Hi.
Hi.
In article <20060115202203.D3624CA0.ocean@m2.ccsnet.ne.jp>,
[#7162] FileUtils.mv does not unlink source file when moving over filesystem boundary — Pav Lucistnik <pav@...>
Hi,
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
[#7178] Add XHTML 1.0 Output Support to Ruby CGI — Paul Duncan <pabs@...>
The attached patch against Ruby 1.8.4 adds XHTML 1.0 output support to
[#7186] Ruby 1.9 and FHS — "Kirill A. Shutemov" <k.shutemov@...>
Build and install system changes:
[#7195] trouble due ruby redefining posix function eaccess — noreply@...
Bugs item #3317, was opened at 2006-01-24 15:33
[#7197] SSL-enabled DRb fds on SSLError? — ctm@... (Clifford T. Matthews)
Howdy,
On Jan 24, 2006, at 12:46 PM, Clifford T. Matthews wrote:
Patch worked fine against HEAD.
[#7203] bcc32's memory manager bug — "H.Yamamoto" <ocean@...2.ccsnet.ne.jp>
Hi.
[#7211] Some troubles with an embedded ruby interpreter — Matt Mower <matt.mower@...>
Hi folks,
[#7216] String#scan loops forefever if scanned string is modified inside block. — noreply@...
Bugs item #3329, was opened at 2006-01-26 10:55
[#7226] Fwd: Re: Question about massive API changes — "Sean E. Russell" <ser@...>
Hello,
Sean E. Russell wrote:
>
On 1/28/06, Caleb Tennis <caleb@aei-tech.com> wrote:
On Saturday 28 January 2006 17:13, Wilson Bilkovich wrote:
Sean E. Russell wrote:
[#7249] PATCH: append option to sysread — Yohanes Santoso <ysantoso-rubycore@...>
[#7259] TCP/UDP server weird lags on 1.8.4 linux — "Bill Kelly" <billk@...>
Hi !
Re: CRC - a proof-of-concept Ruby compiler
tis 2006-01-10 klockan 02:16 +0900 skrev Nicolas Cannasse: > Anders H旦ckersten wrote: > > Hello everyone, > > > > During the last few months me and Andreas Farre have been doing our > > master's thesis on a proof-of-concept compiler for Ruby. The idea is to > > test how well a language like Ruby can be compiled to C--[1]. We are > > nearing the end of our thesis and will be focusing most of our remaining > > time towards writing our report. We would however like feedback on our > > work from the Ruby community. > > Hello, > > Some people are interested in doing the same thing for Neko > (http://nekovm.org). How you would compare the work needed to target > Neko against targeting directly x86 bytecode ? What where the difficult > point is writing the compiler ? Is there some Ruby Language Reference > available somewhere on what you work is based ? > > Best, > > Nicolas Nicolas, The focus of C-- is different from that of Neko. C-- is designed as a portable assembly language. What that means is that we (when writing a Ruby compiler for C--) write code that targets "x86 C--". In other words, our code and the C-- compiler can take advantage of knowing that the underlying machine has certain characteristics. The C-- developers claim that in theory, generating C-- could lead to perhaps 90-95% the speed of generating native x86 assembler (unfortunately, current C-- compilers are not that good). Generating good C-- is also much easier than generating x86 assembly directly (for example, C-- does register allocation for us). Retargeting our compiler to another platform than x86 should also be relatively easy - we just have to rewrite some of the platform specific parts. Of course, that assumes a C-- compiler is available for the platform we wish to target. C-- also provides a very simple runtime system that we hook our own runtime system (written in a mix of mostly C and some C--) into. This enables us to do all the dynamic stuff that Ruby needs. I have not looked extensively at Neko, so most of the following will be guessing from looking through the specification. I think it should be at least slightly easier to target Neko than C--, since Neko provides a much larger existing runtime system to use. I read the discussion you had on this list a few months ago about Neko with much interest and I think a Ruby to Neko compiler is a very interesting idea. The most difficult part of writing our compiler was finding out how things were supposed to work. The closest thing we have found to a reference is the "Programming Ruby" book, but it does not go into great details about the semantics of Ruby. It does however have a very good description of the object model Ruby uses, as well as an informal description of all language constructs. This together with experimenting with the Ruby interpreter gave us a decent picture of how things were supposed to work, but I'm certain some things are wrong. This got rather long. I hope I answered all your questions in some way. :) All the best, Anders