I've merged the changes back into for.rkt and pushed the changes. This
is just refactoring the in-vector code. I'll do a separate commit when
I modify in-fXvector. And yes, tests all pass :)
N.
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 1:22 AM, Eli Barzilay e...@barzilay.org wrote:
1. At this level, I think
Since merging with HEAD I get repeatable segfaults in the prompt tests:
...
and 19526 exception field tests.
Errors were:
(Section (got expected (call)))
((syntax) (9 10 (#procedure:dynamic-require (quote set-local-dfs) ten)))
(Other messages report successful tests of error-handling behavior.)
That's the problem -- doing a full rebuild has fixed it.
in-flvector and in-fxvector have been extended (and doc'ed and
tested), and I also optimised some of the code to use unsafe ops. The
vector defns in ffi/vector.rkt should probably use these tools to
provide sequence abstractions, but I'm
I've read the commit and it looks like a good change. I presume you've
re-run the tests and you'll write new tests for the new vector types?
Jay
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 8:41 AM, Noel Welsh noelwe...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
I spent (far too much) time this morning refactoring the definition of
Hi all,
I spent (far too much) time this morning refactoring the definition of
in-vector to expose the building blocks to compose these
macro/functions. After refactoring the code for defining in-vector is:
(define-:vector-like-gen :vector-gen unsafe-vector-ref)
(define-in-vector-like
5 matches
Mail list logo
