On Thu Sep 18 08:52:10 2008, julianalbo wrote:
> I changed the fix in r31230 to allocate char instead of char *,
> adjusted the formula for buffer size and added a comment explaining it
> to lower the level of black magic, and added a check for each item,
> dropping the XXX comment that asked for i
I changed the fix in r31230 to allocate char instead of char *,
adjusted the formula for buffer size and added a comment explaining it
to lower the level of black magic, and added a check for each item,
dropping the XXX comment that asked for it.
I hope this is enough understanding of the error ;)
On Wed Sep 17 08:31:26 2008, particle wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 11:45 PM, Christoph Otto via RT
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue Sep 16 15:00:24 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> On Tuesday 16 September 2008 14:47:58 NotFound wrote:
> >>
> >> > > It certainly shouldn't segfault. But
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 11:45 PM, Christoph Otto via RT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue Sep 16 15:00:24 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> On Tuesday 16 September 2008 14:47:58 NotFound wrote:
>>
>> > > It certainly shouldn't segfault. But, the question is: why does it
>> > > segfault at 206 par
On Tue Sep 16 15:00:24 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tuesday 16 September 2008 14:47:58 NotFound wrote:
>
> > > It certainly shouldn't segfault. But, the question is: why does it
> > > segfault at 206 parameters? Throwing an exception to avoid an
> error we
> > > don't understand isn't good
On Tuesday 16 September 2008 14:47:58 NotFound wrote:
> > It certainly shouldn't segfault. But, the question is: why does it
> > segfault at 206 parameters? Throwing an exception to avoid an error we
> > don't understand isn't good for the long-term health of the VM.
>
> The problem is located ins
> It certainly shouldn't segfault. But, the question is: why does it segfault
> at 206 parameters? Throwing an exception to avoid an error we don't
> understand isn't good for the long-term health of the VM.
The problem is located inside compilers/imcc/pcc.c:pcc_get_args function.
It has the comm
Christoph Otto (via RT) wrote:
I was looking at #45357 ([TODO] Which exception should be thrown with register
overflow?) and found that Parrot doesn't like subs with more than 205 params.
This seems like a perfectly reasonable limit, but perhaps the behavior could
be more user-friendly.* M