On Sat, Apr 27, 2002 at 05:06:08PM -0400, Mike Lambert wrote:
> > For (1), maybe we should add an opcode: get_number_of_live_objects?
> > Then you could write a test case that records the number of live
> > objects, does stuff, forces a sweep and collect, and checks that the
> > saved number + #ex
> For (1), maybe we should add an opcode: get_number_of_live_objects?
> Then you could write a test case that records the number of live
> objects, does stuff, forces a sweep and collect, and checks that the
> saved number + #expected live objects is equal to the currently live
> number?
I agree
On Sat, Apr 27, 2002 at 12:30:56PM -0700, Steve Fink wrote:
> For (1), maybe we should add an opcode: get_number_of_live_objects?
> Then you could write a test case that records the number of live
> objects, does stuff, forces a sweep and collect, and checks that the
> saved number + #expected liv
I'll paste a diff -ub below to show the changes without the
reindentation noise.
I am about to commit a patch that:
- Fixes a bit test bug, changing to
bits == (bitA | bitB)
from
bits == (bitA & bitB))
- Count of elements in an array of PMCs was wrong. It was looping
over PMC*
