On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 09:43:23PM +0000, seventh guardian wrote: > On 12/29/06, Dominik Vogt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 02:42:16PM +0000, seventh guardian wrote: > >> > >> OOPS it's not safe yet. There's a segmentation fault right in the > >> beggining..... I'll try to find it. > > > >For such a dangerous change it would be good if you could split > >the diffs into a series of self-contained patches that add/change > >some of the functionality. It would help to proof read the > >changes. > > You're right. > > First, we are not dealing with module numbers, but pointers to a type > fmodule. So execcontext.c/h needed changing. Here's the patch.
Okay, that patch looks safe. Is there any chance to make bigger patches that compile when applied and can actually be used? This way we could validate the code step by step. For example, you could temporarily put the modnum into the module struct and use "module->modnum instead" of "modnum" for the moment. Ciao Dominik ^_^ ^_^ -- Dominik Vogt, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
