Re: [PATCH] Unified PMC/PObj accessors phase 2
Gordon Henriksen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The patch is at the URL below, and I've split it into 4 for you. The=20 classes-include-lib patch must be applied before any of the other 3.=20 I've resolved the 3-4 conflicts that occurred since the patch was first=20= I've applied now pmc-accessors2-classes-include-lib. *But* 1) PObj_int_val or such doesn't exist, i.e. Buffer (logically) doesn't have an int_val, so I renamed that back to PMC_int_val (for all PMC types). 2) The *misc.patch doesn't compile in jit/i386 3) *src-a*.patch reverts Mike's docu patch 4) didn't look at the second src patch then Yeah such big patches are a pain. Thanks anyway, leo [* - Somewhat inadvisedly, I think. UnionVal is 8 bytes on a 32-bit=20 architecture, but bloats to 16 bytes on a 64-bit architecture. That's likely so because of alignment. But real numbers would be better of course. leo
RE: [PATCH] Unified PMC/PObj accessors phase 2
[* - Somewhat inadvisedly, I think. UnionVal is 8 bytes on a 32-bit architecture, but bloats to 16 bytes on a 64-bit architecture. That's likely so because of alignment. But real numbers would be better of course. Err? No, I'd think it's because the union contains two 16-byte structs (64-bit ptr + 64-bit ptr = 128-bit struct = 16 bytes). Shouldn't be any padding in UnionVal unless there's a 32-bit architecture out there that wants to align 32-bit values to 64- bit boundaries... -- Gordon Henriksen IT Manager ICLUBcentral Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PATCH] Unified PMC/PObj accessors phase 2
Gordon Henriksen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's likely so because of alignment. But real numbers would
be better of course.
Err? No, I'd think it's because the union contains two 16-byte
structs (64-bit ptr + 64-bit ptr = 128-bit struct = 16 bytes).
The minimum size is {bufstart*, buflen). The 2 pointers just fill that
memory.
leo
Re: [PATCH] Unified PMC/PObj accessors phase 2
Leopold Toetsch wrote: Gordon Henriksen wrote: The patch is at the URL below, and I've split it into 4 for you. The classes-include-lib patch must be applied before any of the other 3. I've resolved the 3-4 conflicts that occurred since the patch was first I've applied now pmc-accessors2-classes-include-lib. *But* 2) The *misc.patch doesn't compile in jit/i386 3) *src-a*.patch reverts Mike's docu patch Ack! Bad cvs update! No cookie! Not sure why those didn't merge. http://www.ma.iclub.com/pub/parrot/ now lists a .tgz with separate patches for each file. You can apply the patches in any order, or not at all; there are no interdependencies. Except!: include_parrot_pobj.h will remove the compatibility interfaces, so you may wish to sit on that for a month or so. -- Gordon Henriksen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
