Ok, this is now obsolete. I was too slow, I guess. :-) The following
patch (1) is no longer needed because Peter's new version has already
been committed, and (2) fails to pass a stacks.t test. But in case we
want to keep the neonate counters, here's an updated version of
Peter's original neonate
On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 06:58:40PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote [to P. Gibbs]:
> Did we get you commit privs? If so, commit it. If not, get me your
> perl.org login and I'll get it taken care of.
In the meantime, I committed that patch.
At 11:05 PM +0200 5/18/02, Peter Gibbs wrote:
>The COW patch has been revised for minimal impact to the outside world.
>The only files changed are: resources.h, resources.c, string.h, string.c
>There is one API change: Parrot_reallocate_string has an additional
>parameter. However, nobody outside
The COW patch has been revised for minimal impact to the outside world.
The only files changed are: resources.h, resources.c, string.h, string.c
There is one API change: Parrot_reallocate_string has an additional
parameter. However, nobody outside string.c really has any business calling
that anyw
At 10:29 AM -0700 5/18/02, Steve Fink wrote:
>On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 12:18:14PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>> At 9:53 PM +0200 5/15/02, Peter Gibbs wrote:
>> >The attached patch is the next set of proposed changes to the memory
>> >management routines, with the copy-on-write logic removed.
>>
On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 12:18:14PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 9:53 PM +0200 5/15/02, Peter Gibbs wrote:
> >The attached patch is the next set of proposed changes to the memory
> >management routines, with the copy-on-write logic removed.
>
> Peter, did these go in?
I don't think so, and I d
At 9:53 PM +0200 5/15/02, Peter Gibbs wrote:
>The attached patch is the next set of proposed changes to the memory
>management routines, with the copy-on-write logic removed.
Peter, did these go in?
--
Dan
--"it's like
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 09:53:48PM +0200, Peter Gibbs wrote:
> [Steve - it seems to me that the 'normal' buffer pool should just be
> replaced by the size 0 pool in your new system? I would think twice about
> incorporating strings, as that might complicate COW, if it ever happens.]
Yes. In my p
