Hello.
Can we at least start with designing new APIs before ripping out old
system? Then we can compre effort of migrating vs ripping.
--
Bacek
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 2:10 PM, Christoph Otto wrote:
> On 12/31/2010 10:50 AM, Andrew Whitworth wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 12:05 PM, chroma
On Sunday 02 January 2011 at 20:39, Peter Lobsinger wrote:
> There are a lot of places in parrot where abnormal and unintended uses
> catch on assertions. Should all of these be exceptions? Do we have
> guidelines on what should be exception-guarded and what should be
> assertion-guarded? Is the d
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 9:13 PM, Andrew Whitworth wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Peter Lobsinger wrote:
>> The hit assertion is for sig_str, which is legitimate. Every NCI
>> function *must* have a signature in order to be able to determine how
>> to map PCC to the native ABI. sig_str be
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Peter Lobsinger wrote:
> The hit assertion is for sig_str, which is legitimate. Every NCI
> function *must* have a signature in order to be able to determine how
> to map PCC to the native ABI. sig_str being null is *not* a valid
> state for this object, and the ass
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Nolan L wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Peter Lobsinger wrote:
>> If you provide the script you've run to hit these assertions, we can get
>> started on fixing this problem. Also, patches welcome.
> The following PIR segment is enough to trigger an asserti
AFAICS, the current 'make cover' target runs only the run_core tests. I
think 'make cover' should cover the same tests as a plain 'make test' to
avoid any confusion.
Nick
___
http://lists.parrot.org/mailman/listinfo/parrot-dev
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Peter Lobsinger wrote:
> If you provide the script you've run to hit these assertions, we can get
> started on fixing this problem. Also, patches welcome.
The following PIR segment is enough to trigger an assertion.
.sub main
.local pmc nci
nci = new ['NCI']
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 2:08 AM, Nolan L wrote:
> Whilst going through the NCI PMC for the purpose of increasing test
> coverage, I noticed inconsistent behavior of many of the VTABLE
> functions within. While some returned pointers to nci_info->orig_func,
> others operated on nci_info->func, creat
