On Jan 20, 2006, at 20:57, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 05:51:53PM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
This could be fixed by special-casing the initial call to ':main',
and then turn on param count checks if wanted.
I think you'll need to invert that, given that code can be exec
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 11:41:45AM -0800, jerry gay wrote:
> i suppose we need a design decision on this.
We need a PIR version of get_params '()'. I'm OK with .no_params.
--
Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 05:51:53PM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> This could be fixed by special-casing the initial call to ':main',
> and then turn on param count checks if wanted.
I think you'll need to invert that, given that code can be executed
before :main, e.g. :immediate. Default the err
On 1/16/06, Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Roger Browne wrote:
>
> > Wow, it really does work. Thanks! Although it misses the case where the
> > called sub has zero .params:
> >
> >.sub 'main' :main
> > errorson 0x0C
> > foo(5)
> >.end
> >.sub foo
> > pri
On Mon, 2006-01-16 at 14:51 +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> As said, get_params isn't emitted at all, if there are no params. A
> simple work-around could be:
>
>.macro .no_params # maybe defined internally
> get_params '()'
> ...
> With r11213 this throws an exception for the above sam
Roger Browne wrote:
Wow, it really does work. Thanks! Although it misses the case where the
called sub has zero .params:
.sub 'main' :main
errorson 0x0C
foo(5)
.end
.sub foo
print "Not OK\n"
.end
As said, get_params isn't emitted at all, if there are no params. A
On 1/13/06, jerry gay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i'll fix PGE, which will leave only about 135 failures, many of which
> are in library code (no surprise there.) with a little help, i think
> we can squash these failures in no time.
>
on second thought... before i go diving into PGE to fix someth
On 1/13/06, Roger Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-01-13 at 17:01 +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
>
> > 885/4851 subtests failing, 81,76% okay.
>
> Wow, that's a lot of tests affected by this one thing.
>
most of them are in the PGE tests. since there are over 1,300 PGE
tests, and and
Roger Browne wrote:
Wow, it really does work. Thanks! Although it misses the case where the
called sub has zero .params:
.sub 'main' :main
errorson 0x0C
foo(5)
.end
.sub foo
print "Not OK\n"
.end
Yep. There is currently just one reason for that and it's in your c
On Fri, 2006-01-13 at 17:01 +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> ... making argument
> > count mismatch detection work with '.param'?
>
> That's as easy as emitting one instruction in main:
>
>errorson 0x0C
Wow, it really does work. Thanks! Although it miss
10 matches
Mail list logo