On Sun, 9 Dec 2001, Ask Bjoern Hansen wrote:
> power is back up and so is the box where cvs.perl.org is. have fun.
> :)
Ahaa... never mind the man behind the curtain.
In a particular clever moment I screwed up the ipfw rules so now the
box is running but noone can talk to it.
It's 60 miles aw
On Fri, 7 Dec 2001, Ask Bjoern Hansen wrote:
> the city is doing some compliance testing whatever on the building
> where cvs.perl.org is this Sunday (don't ask, I think it sounds odd
> too!).
power is back up and so is the box where cvs.perl.org is. have fun.
:)
- ask
--
ask bjoern hansen
While implementing one of my IO routines in core.ops I
used free_string() on a string that was created ultimately
with mem_allocate_aligned() and I get core dumps. I assume
it has to do with the fact that the memory allocator
adjusts the address before returning the chunk and free()
then gets conf
One of the interesting side-effects of a copying collector is that we can't
inherently determine which objects need to be destructed (their memory space
just gets reused without notifying anyone). I'm already looking to use some
algorithms that utilize linked-lists to determine set-association
Ack! never mind, I see the problem, I'll submit a new patch if an elegant
solution comes to me. Thanks for your time.
David
- Original Message -
From: "David & Lisa Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Sam Tregar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2001
Thanks for the catch!
How about just adding the limit check back in.
for (i=1; (size>i) && (i<0xff); i<<=1);
Do you like the rest of the changes I made to the algorithm?
David Jacobs
- Original Message -
From: "Sam Tregar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > +for (i = 1; size > i; i <<=
This patch fixes a bug in the pop_generic_entry's switch statment, changing it from
switching on type to (*top)->entry_type. Otherwise when type=0 (i.e., don't care) the
logic breaks.
The patch also includes a few styalistic changes that make it easier for the compiler
to optimize (e.g., inst
On Sun, 9 Dec 2001, David Jacobs wrote:
> +for (i = 1; size > i; i <<= 1);
Infinite loop if size == MAXINT, eh? "So don't do that." Ok.
-sam
This small patch cleans up two things with the allocate aligned memory routine. It
cleans up the for loop eliminating the need for the bit operations inside and making
it a bit clearer what is happening. It also reduces the memory allocated from twice
the rounded up power of two to the rounde
For the past week or so, I've been working on design and code within
this area. While I am waiting for answers to my last couple of
questions, I'm throwing this out there. This is mostly FYI, partly
RFC, and not an FIX.
Portability:
There are four levels of potential portability and portabil
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Fink) writes:
> On Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 11:02:34AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > >Q: Who has commit privileges? Who's responsible for what?
> >
> > A: Good question. Simon and Dan, and a handful of others.
>
> Can anyone fill in the handful? Ask, maybe? I'm hoping for
11 matches
Mail list logo