On Wed Oct 15 12:42:23 2008, coke wrote:
> Here's yet another updated version (this time for the exception handler)
> of the test that doesn't segfault, but still generates incorrect output
> (generates both an OK line and a NOK line)
It looks like the exception handler is resuming after the excep
On Tue Sep 16 18:20:36 2008, amosrobinson wrote:
> No segfaults here either, with your PIR. (r31173, vanilla ubuntu)
>
> On Tue Sep 02 12:45:34 2008, tene wrote:
> > I don't get a segfault when running the test case without the 'end'
> > opcode. Can anyone else confirm if this still segfaults?
>
I don't get a segfault when running the test case without the 'end'
opcode. Can anyone else confirm if this still segfaults?
cet.pir
Description: Binary data
On Monday 04 August 2008 16:22:35 Will Coleda via RT wrote:
> Post pdd25cx mergeback, updating the syntax yet again, and simplifying it
> slightly, we have the attached file, which generates:
>
> ok #test exception from init vtable
> not ok #test exception from init vtable
>
> Even better, remove
On Sat Jun 14 20:37:53 2008, coke wrote:
> On Sat Apr 14 15:46:56 2007, allison wrote:
> > What I get is:
> >
> > [oops; continuation 0x188ae28 of type 24 is trying to jump from
> runloop
> > 2 to runloop 1]
> > ok
> > not ok
> >
> > from line 252 of src/pmc/continuation.pmc
> >
> > Looks like this
On Sat Apr 14 15:46:56 2007, allison wrote:
> What I get is:
>
> [oops; continuation 0x188ae28 of type 24 is trying to jump from runloop
> 2 to runloop 1]
> ok
> not ok
>
> from line 252 of src/pmc/continuation.pmc
>
> Looks like this is yet-another-example of the inferior runloops problem.
>
>
Jonathan, Allison: Can we get an update as to whether this is still a bug?
Thank you very much.
kid51
