On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 11:00:58AM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
>
> On Sep 20, 2005, at 7:42, Joshua Hoblitt via RT wrote:
>
> >
> >Is this still an unresolved design issue or can the bug be closed?
>
> If in doubt just close such old [PATCH] tickets.
I'm just trying to be thorough. Hopefully
On Sep 20, 2005, at 7:42, Joshua Hoblitt via RT wrote:
Is this still an unresolved design issue or can the bug be closed?
If in doubt just close such old [PATCH] tickets.
-J
Thx,
leo
Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In perl.perl6.internals, you wrote:
> > Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> As long as packfile functions don't allocate memory (besides their
> >> own structures) it doesn't matter very much. Nethertheless, when
> >> doing changes I wo
In perl.perl6.internals, you wrote:
> Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> As long as packfile functions don't allocate memory (besides their
>> own structures) it doesn't matter very much. Nethertheless, when
>> doing changes I would include an interpreter param.
> I wonder if 'interpr
Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Juergen Boemmels wrote:
>
>> Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>>When there is no interpreter in PIO_eprint, vfprintf gets called.
>>>
>> As we are in the state of changing packfile.c (at least long term):
>> Should the packfile functions
Dan Sugalski wrote:
I have, in the past, considered having a parent interpreter that doesn't
ever run any code, and is around for the sole purpose of hanging
'global' parrot memory off of. I never did it because I wasn't sure we
needed it, but it might be time to dust off the idea.
No more
At 7:13 PM +0100 10/28/02, Juergen Boemmels wrote:
Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Brent Dax wrote:
> Perhaps you don't understand what I mean. What I'm talking about is the
> fact that most functions in packfile.c don't even take an interpreter
> argument.
I know. Please fe
At 3:13 PM +0100 10/28/02, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 1:05 PM +0100 10/27/02, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Though, /me thinks, that we should always have a valid interpreter.
I tried very hard to make sure that there was always a valid interpreter.
Now we have one ;-)
I have,
Juergen Boemmels wrote:
Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
When there is no interpreter in PIO_eprint, vfprintf gets called.
As we are in the state of changing packfile.c (at least long term):
Should the packfile functions have an interpreter or should the
packfile stay on its own.
Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brent Dax wrote:
>
>
> > Perhaps you don't understand what I mean. What I'm talking about is the
> > fact that most functions in packfile.c don't even take an interpreter
> > argument.
>
> I know. Please fetch the new code from CVS.
>
> When ther
Brent Dax wrote:
Perhaps you don't understand what I mean. What I'm talking about is the
fact that most functions in packfile.c don't even take an interpreter
argument.
I know. Please fetch the new code from CVS.
When there is no interpreter in PIO_eprint, vfprintf gets called.
leo
Leopold Toetsch:
# Brent Dax wrote:
# > When I was working on switching most fprintf calls to PIO,
# there were
# > so many functions that didn't take an interpreter that I eventually
# > made PIO_printf and PIO_eprintf (output to stderr) fall
# back to stdio
# > if given a null interpreter.
#
Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 1:05 PM +0100 10/27/02, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Though, /me thinks, that we should always have a valid interpreter.
I tried very hard to make sure that there was always a valid
interpreter.
Now we have one ;-)
I did change the startup sequence, so that _all_ memor
Brent Dax wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote on 10/27/02 8.11:
I tried very hard to make sure that there was always a valid
interpreter.
--
When I was working on switching most fprintf calls to PIO, there were so
many functions that didn't take an interpreter that I eventually made
PIO_printf and PIO_epr
Dan Sugalski wrote on 10/27/02 8.11:
I tried very hard to make sure that there was always a valid
interpreter.
--
When I was working on switching most fprintf calls to PIO, there were so
many functions that didn't take an interpreter that I eventually made
PIO_printf and PIO_eprintf (output to std
At 1:05 PM +0100 10/27/02, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Jürgen Bömmels (via RT) wrote:
# New Ticket Created by Jürgen Bömmels # Please include the
string: [perl #18097]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this
issue. # http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=18097 >
Than
Jürgen Bömmels (via RT) wrote:
# New Ticket Created by Jürgen Bömmels
# Please include the string: [perl #18097]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=18097 >
Thanks applied.
Though, /me thinks, that we should al
# New Ticket Created by Jürgen Bömmels
# Please include the string: [perl #18097]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=18097 >
When using Parrot_sprintf* functions without an interpreter, you get
segfaults. The at
18 matches
Mail list logo
