Steve Fink [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would remove the rxstack, but I didn't want to break the closest
thing we have to a regex engine until I or someone else managed to
release a different working implementation. The particular technique
of using a single stack tied directly the interpreter
On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 09:09:34PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 11:43 PM +0200 6/29/03, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
[ stack implementations ]
Well... we only really have three.
Control, User Pad have the same stack engine. The register backing
stacks and rxstack sum up
At 11:43 PM +0200 6/29/03, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
[ stack implementations ]
Well... we only really have three.
Control, User Pad have the same stack engine. The register backing
stacks and rxstack sum up to 5 more.
Pads shouldn't really be stacks, they should be plain linked
At 11:21 PM +0200 6/26/03, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 8:26 AM +0200 6/25/03, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
The first question is:
Do we need such a limit check on the register backing stacks too?
If we're going to put limits in, yes.
If we want some secure
Dan Sugalski wrote:
[ stack implementations ]
Well... we only really have three.
Control, User Pad have the same stack engine. The register backing
stacks and rxstack sum up to 5 more.
... The I/P/N/S stacks are all the
same, the only reason they've got different code is because the elements
At 8:26 AM +0200 6/25/03, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
x-flowedDan Sugalski wrote:
At 10:33 AM +0200 6/24/03, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
I've added a check for too deeply nested stacks now.
I probably ought to get started on the stack-chunk-as-PMC patch for
garbage collection of stack frames. :)
The
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 8:26 AM +0200 6/25/03, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
The first question is:
Do we need such a limit check on the register backing stacks too?
If we're going to put limits in, yes.
If we want some secure executions modes too, we will need this anyway.
The
Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 10:33 AM +0200 6/24/03, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
I've added a check for too deeply nested stacks now.
I probably ought to get started on the stack-chunk-as-PMC patch for
garbage collection of stack frames. :)
The first question is:
Do we need such a limit check on the
Clinton A. Pierce [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Found the bug. Mostly MEA CULPA. A thousand pardons to the good Parrot folk.
When calling a sub like this:
.arg 0
call _foo
It's probably a good thing to take the 0 off the stack at some
point.
Thanks again for your bug
At 10:33 AM +0200 6/24/03, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Clinton A. Pierce [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Found the bug. Mostly MEA CULPA. A thousand pardons to the good
Parrot folk.
When calling a sub like this:
.arg 0
call _foo
It's probably a good thing to take the 0 off the
At 09:22 PM 6/23/2003 +, you wrote:
# New Ticket Created by Clinton A. Pierce
# Please include the string: [perl #22767]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=22767
I apologize for the length of this
11 matches
Mail list logo
