# New Ticket Created by Bob Rogers
# Please include the string: [perl #38284]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# <URL: https://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=38284 >
This fixes Closure:mark, which incorrectly assumed that
sub->outer_ctx existed if sub->outer_sub did.
-- Bob Rogers
http://rgrjr.dyndns.org/
Index: src/pmc/closure.pmc
===================================================================
--- src/pmc/closure.pmc (revision 11268)
+++ src/pmc/closure.pmc (working copy)
@@ -58,10 +58,10 @@
void mark () {
struct Parrot_sub * sub = PMC_sub(SELF);
SUPER();
- if (sub->outer_sub) {
+ if (sub->outer_sub)
pobject_lives(INTERP, (PObj*)sub->outer_sub);
+ if (sub->outer_ctx)
mark_context(INTERP, sub->outer_ctx);
- }
}
Index: t/pmc/closure.t
===================================================================
--- t/pmc/closure.t (revision 11268)
+++ t/pmc/closure.t (working copy)
@@ -33,6 +33,25 @@
ok 1
OUT
+pir_output_is(<<'CODE', <<'OUTPUT', 'Make sure we can sweep closures.');
+## This is a regression test for a bug in which Closure:mark expected
+## sub->outer_ctx to be initialized, regardless of whether the closure
+## had ever been called.
+.sub _test_1 :main
+ .lex "X", $P40
+ $P40 = new Integer
+ $P40 = 22
+ .const .Sub $P43 = "___internal_test_1_0_"
+ newclosure $P44, $P43
+ sweep 1
+ print "We lived.\n"
+.end
+.sub ___internal_test_1_0_ :outer('_test_1')
+ print "This is never actually run.\n"
+.end
+CODE
+We lived.
+OUTPUT
# remember to change the number of tests :-)
-BEGIN { plan tests => 1; }
+BEGIN { plan tests => 2; }
