At 4:47 PM -0800 11/18/02, kj wrote:
Hello Jonathan,
I just dropped my shell resources back down (datasize 6144k,
stacksize 512k) and the tests pass for the version compiled with the
gcc-3.1-based compiler. Looks like we found our culprit, at least
for Darwin 5.5.
I wonder which version
Hello again,
I tried upping the datasize to 80 meg and stacksize to 8 meg in my
shell, and compiled with gcc3:
Reading specs from /usr/libexec/gcc/darwin/ppc/3.1/specs
Thread model: posix
Apple Computer, Inc. GCC version 1041, based on gcc version 3.1 20020105
(experimental)
Parrot built c
Hello Jonathan,
I just dropped my shell resources back down (datasize 6144k, stacksize
512k) and the tests pass for the version compiled with the gcc-3.1-based
compiler. Looks like we found our culprit, at least for Darwin 5.5.
I wonder which version of the compiler is on glastig? Having
> -Original Message-
> From: kj [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> I'm getting mixed results building from this morning's CVS -- on
> Linux/x86 I only get the t/op.lexicals.t failures, but on Darwin/PPC I'm
> also getting failures in t/pmc/scratchpad.t. Would your patch have
> anything to do
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan Sillito) wrote:
> Steve,
>
> Thanks! Was there a problem applying the patch? I just checked out a new cvs
> images and the file t/op/lexicals.t has not been updated. As a result, a few
> tests are failing. Should I resubmit the part of
age-
> From: Steve Fink [mailto:steve@;fink.com]
> Sent: November 14, 2002 9:51 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [perl #18170] [PATCH] very complete lexical scope
> implementation
>
>
> Applied, finally. Thanks.
>
Applied, finally. Thanks.
--- sub.c.orig
+++ sub.c Thu Nov 7 23:15:06 2002
@@ -139,7 +139,13 @@
PMC * pad_pmc = pmc_new(interp, enum_class_Scratchpad);
pad_pmc->cache.int_val = 0;
-if ((base && depth > base->cache.int_val) || (!base && depth != 0)) {
+if (base && depth < 0) {
+depth = base->cach
Jonathan Sillito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 2 Nov 2002, Juergen Boemmels wrote:
>
> > Ok, I tested the patch (I tried to use this scratchpads for the scheme
> > compiler)
> > One thing I missed (or at least didn't find): How can I generate a new
> > scope? new_pad generates a new one one th
Jonathan Sillito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 2 Nov 2002, Juergen Boemmels wrote:
>
> > Ok, I tested the patch (I tried to use this scratchpads for the scheme
> > compiler)
> > One thing I missed (or at least didn't find): How can I generate a new
> > scope? new_pad generates a new one one th
On 2 Nov 2002, Juergen Boemmels wrote:
> Ok, I tested the patch (I tried to use this scratchpads for the scheme
> compiler)
> One thing I missed (or at least didn't find): How can I generate a new
> scope? new_pad generates a new one one the pad stack with a size which
> is actually smaller than
Jonathan Sillito (via RT) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> The attached patch implements a very complete set of lexical scope
> semantics. For those that have been following along, here are some
> highlights.
>
> - supports (fast) access by lexical position, rather than just by name
>
> - add
> -Original Message-
> From: Leopold Toetsch [mailto:lt@;toetsch.at]
>
> WRT your comment: "should we use a List * here", I slightly vote for
> yes. In the long run we could use List as the basic store for registers
> and stacks as well.
> List would only need a small extension to manage ar
Jonathan Sillito (via RT) wrote:
# New Ticket Created by Jonathan Sillito
# Please include the string: [perl #18170]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=18170 >
- changed: sub.c
Comments?
WRT your comment:
# New Ticket Created by Jonathan Sillito
# Please include the string: [perl #18170]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=18170 >
The attached patch implements a very complete set of lexical scope
semantics. For th
15 matches
Mail list logo
