At 10:12 PM 1/15/2002 +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
>On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 03:06:45PM -0500, Melvin Smith wrote:
> > Eep, you are right, as usual I answered a non-existing question, but
> > this brings up a point. Various times I've seen people changing
> > "signedness" of variables, etc. in one
On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 03:06:45PM -0500, Melvin Smith wrote:
> Eep, you are right, as usual I answered a non-existing question, but
> this brings up a point. Various times I've seen people changing
> "signedness" of variables, etc. in one or two places to clear up a
> few warnings and I'm wonderi
On SPARC, gcc -Wcast-align gives 70+ warnings of the form
interpreter.c:69: warning: cast increases required alignment of target type
For about half the warnings, the code in question is something of the
form:
code_start = (opcode_t *)interpreter->code->byte_code;
where interpreter->code->
These are happening because although pmc2c.pl is writing out a header
file, it isn't putting an #include directive into the C code to tell
it to use the file - this is only happening for the superclasses of the
PMC (which is generally only default at the moment). Patch below fixes.
NB. Ther
On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 04:39 PM 1/15/2002 +, Alex Gough wrote:
> >On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Simon Glover wrote:
> >
> > >warning: control reaches end of non-void function
> > >
> > > I'm not sure what to do about the former. The latter generally seem to
> > > arise f
Andy Dougherty:
# On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Melvin Smith wrote:
#
# > Maybe set the check to :
# >
# > if(rx->startindex-- == 0)
#
# That still sets startindex to the equivalent of (unsigned)
# -1, which might
# be something like 4294967295. I'm wondering whether that was
# the actual
# intent.
On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Melvin Smith wrote:
> Maybe set the check to :
>
> if(rx->startindex-- == 0)
That still sets startindex to the equivalent of (unsigned) -1, which might
be something like 4294967295. I'm wondering whether that was the actual
intent. I suspect probably not. Perhaps Br
Ok, I take that back, he is my hero too! I used to wonder the same about
Linus (Torvalds) when
I was on linux-kernel, how he could handle so many patches, hold down a job
AND find time
to write code of is own is beyond me. Not to mention family, food, fun.
-Melvin Smith
IBM :: Atlanta Innovatio
On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 03:06:45PM -0500, Melvin Smith wrote:
> To be clear, what Andy is doing is the right thing (asking what the
> intent of a piece of code is), but I doubt everyone does this and
> I'm sure Dan doesn't check every single line of every patch before
> eating each one, or if he d
Here are the warnings that remain in MSVC on level 4.
1) core.ops(2481) : warning C4047: 'return' : 'void ** ' differs in levels
of indirection from 'long *'
This occurs when compiling core_ops_prederef.c. run_native and run_compiled
both return a long*. This meshes well with core_ops.c's use of
Just realized that I've been forgetting the [PATCH] modifier, so I apologize
about that. :)
This patch adds the ability to do: 'make quicktest' instead of 'make test'.
This patch causes the assemble.pl'ed output to be cached, and only
regenerated-when necessary. This causes the .pbc and .pasm fil
On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 02:58:53PM -0500, Michel Lambert wrote:
> Some more minor fixes and cleanup to parrot's ability to read in pbc data
> off of STDIN. Note that using an MSVC-compiled parrot doesn't work in
> cygwin...it reads in less data than it should, both before and after this
> patch. O
Eep, you are right, as usual I answered a non-existing question, but
this brings up a point. Various times I've seen people changing
"signedness" of variables, etc. in one or two places to clear up a
few warnings and I'm wondering how many times there have been ripple
effects.
I'm very happy for
Yesterday I posted a MSVC-warning -cleanup patch, which did some incorrect
casts to BOOLVAL (thanks Steve Fink). This patch adds a TO_BOOLVAL macro,
and uses it everywhere a cast is needed.
Mike Lambert
to_boolval.patch
Description: Binary data
Some more minor fixes and cleanup to parrot's ability to read in pbc data
off of STDIN. Note that using an MSVC-compiled parrot doesn't work in
cygwin...it reads in less data than it should, both before and after this
patch. Only a gcc/cygwin-compiled parrot works in cygwin. I don't think this
is
Maybe set the check to :
if(rx->startindex-- == 0)
-Melvin Smith
IBM :: Atlanta Innovation Center
[EMAIL PROTECTED] :: 770-835-6984
On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 02:06:17PM -0500, Tanton Gibbs wrote:
> You could break it up into:
>
> else if( rx->startindex == 0 ) {
> goto OFFSET($2);
> }
> else {
> --rx->startindex
> }
Or simply change the condition to 'if (rx->startindex-- == 0)'. But
the real question he's asking is: what i
You could break it up into:
else if( rx->startindex == 0 ) {
goto OFFSET($2);
}
else {
--rx->startindex
}
- Original Message -
From: "Andy Dougherty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Perl6 Internals" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 1:47 PM
Subject: gcc warnings: rx->starti
Ok, I've been paging through the hundreds of errors spewn out by gcc
with the new -Wkitchen_sink warnings. Some are pretty clear, but
many others raise questions I'm unsure how to answer.
For example, given the following structure in "parrot/rx.h"
(note that startindex is unsigned):
typedef
On Solaris 8, if I use a perl5.7.2+ compiled with gcc with all the default
options, and then use that perl to try to build parrot with all its
defaults, I get a fatal error:
gcc -I/usr/local/include -I/opt/gnu/include -D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64
-Wall -ansi -pedantic -Wstrict-pro
This patch add docs/running.pod, which lists the various executables
Parrot currently includes, examples of running them, and mentions of
where they fail to work. It's more of a cry for help than a useful
reference. :-) I've been having trouble recently when making changes
in figuring out whether
Joe Yates:
# I have just built parrot-0.03 on Win2000 using MSVC. Doing so
# caused me a
# couple of problems (see attachment).
#
# If these problems have already been solved, please ignore
# this message (and
# excuse me butting in!)
All of these issues have been resolved since 0.0.3 was release
I have just built parrot-0.03 on Win2000 using MSVC. Doing so caused me a
couple of problems (see attachment).
If these problems have already been solved, please ignore this message (and
excuse me butting in!)
Joe Yates
1. Unzip
2. >perl Configure.pl
=
Hey, looks like the attachment didn't make it, at least to my end.
-Melvin Smith
IBM :: Atlanta Innovation Center
[EMAIL PROTECTED] :: 770-835-6984
(Embedded image
At 06:03 PM 1/15/2002 +0100, Joe Yates wrote:
>I have just built parrot-0.03 on Win2000 using MSVC. Doing so caused me a
>couple of problems (see attachment).
Hmmm. No attachment was attached. :)
If you're using the 0.0.3 tarball, then there have been a lot of changes
since then. Check out th
I have just built parrot-0.03 on Win2000 using MSVC. Doing so caused me a
couple of problems (see attachment).
If these problems have already been solved, please ignore this message (and
excuse me butting in!)
Joe Yates
At 06:33 PM 1/14/2002 -0500, Jason Gloudon wrote:
>Pointer arithmetic not quite right in the generated code. Also patches
>pbc2c.pl to work with rx.ops.
Applied, thanks.
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Su
At 04:39 PM 1/15/2002 +, Alex Gough wrote:
>On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Simon Glover wrote:
>
> >warning: control reaches end of non-void function
> >
> > I'm not sure what to do about the former. The latter generally seem to
> > arise from unimplemented methods. Accordingly, I've added a new
>
On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Simon Glover wrote:
>warning: control reaches end of non-void function
>
> I'm not sure what to do about the former. The latter generally seem to
> arise from unimplemented methods. Accordingly, I've added a new
> exception, PMC_FN_NOT_IMPLEMENTED, to exception.h, and
On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 13, 2002 at 02:14:08PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > So, I'm turning off the unused parameter warning for now to shut the .ops
> > file compiles up. After that point, all submitted patches must generate no
> > more warnings than were cu
At 11:17 PM 1/14/2002 +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
>On Sun, Jan 13, 2002 at 02:14:08PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > So, I'm turning off the unused parameter warning for now to shut the .ops
> > file compiles up. After that point, all submitted patches must generate no
> > more warnings than were
At 01:34 PM 1/14/2002 -0800, Steve Fink wrote:
>This patch adds a few more macros for .ops files to use. In addition
>to the existing
Applied, thanks.
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski
32 matches
Mail list logo
