Re: Note on PMC.pod...

2002-01-02 Thread Scott Fenton
On Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 11:02:34PM -0500, the keyboard of Jeff G was alleged to have written: > [snip] > rarified atmosphere didn't affect my brain too badly. Same goes for the > known-incomplete PerlHash class. It works, but has no collision > [snip] Huh? Wha? What did I miss? What is this Perl

RE: Note on PMC.pod...

2002-01-02 Thread Brent Dax
Jeff G: # Same # goes for the # known-incomplete PerlHash class. It works, but # has no collision resolution yet. What kind of backend data structure are you using--flat array, buckets (array of arrays) or chains (array of linked lists)? If y

Re: 64-bit Solaris status

2002-01-02 Thread Bryan C. Warnock
On Thursday 03 January 2002 12:33 am, Bryan C. Warnock wrote: > Looks like the chunk_base logic doesn't work on 64-bit Solaris. Every > test failure I checked was centered around an inaccesable address coming > out of STACK_CHUNK_BASE(*top) [line 85] . I'll dig deeper tomorrow. Er, > today. Pa

64-bit Solaris status

2002-01-02 Thread Bryan C. Warnock
Looks like the chunk_base logic doesn't work on 64-bit Solaris. Every test failure I checked was centered around an inaccesable address coming out of STACK_CHUNK_BASE(*top) [line 85] . I'll dig deeper tomorrow. Er, today. -- Bryan C. Warnock [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Note on PMC.pod...

2002-01-02 Thread Jeff G
I have come down off the mountain, and bear a partially-written article for perl.com on how to roll your own PMCs and what this means. Should hit perl.com sometime within the next two months, with any luck. It needs the final bit written, and as I've just spent the better part of a week at almost

Re: Solaris status

2002-01-02 Thread Bryan C. Warnock
On Wednesday 02 January 2002 03:28 pm, David M. Lloyd wrote: > Here's how things build on Solaris now: > > 32-bit: Perfect, beautiful, couldn't be better. > 32-bit with 64-bit ints: OK, but many PMC tests fail, don't know why yet. > 64-bit: Horrid. About 25% of tests are crashing, don't know why

Re: Re: [PATCH pmc2c.pl] Tracking line numbers

2002-01-02 Thread Steve Fink
On Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 11:49:40PM +, Alex Gough wrote: > On Wed, 2 Jan 2002, Steve Fink wrote: > > > This patch makes pmc2c.pl emit #line directives to .c files so the > > Good plan, saves me hitting M-x revert-buffer every time I try to > change something when hunting. Is this likely to m

Re: [PATCH pmc2c.pl] Tracking line numbers

2002-01-02 Thread Alex Gough
On Wed, 2 Jan 2002, Steve Fink wrote: > This patch makes pmc2c.pl emit #line directives to .c files so the Good plan, saves me hitting M-x revert-buffer every time I try to change something when hunting. Is this likely to make it harder to charge through the actual C with a debugger, if so, can

Re: [PATCH pmc2c.pl] Tracking line numbers

2002-01-02 Thread Steve Fink
Oops, left out a chunk. I get confused when I have too many interfering local changes. Here's a snippet for classes/Makefile.in that needs to be applied along with the previous pmc2c.pl patch for #lines. Index: classes/Makefile.in ==

Re: GCC port [was: Re: RAM?]

2002-01-02 Thread Nicholas Clark
On Tue, Oct 16, 2001 at 05:29:50PM -0400, James Mastros wrote: > On Tue, 16 Oct 2001, Dan Sugalski wrote: > > Ummm. Well. I think that you'll find this pretty much the case already (or > > planned, at least, as some of the bits aren't done yet) so I'm not sure > > that it'd really buy anything oth

[PATCH pmc2c.pl] Tracking line numbers

2002-01-02 Thread Steve Fink
This patch makes pmc2c.pl emit #line directives to .c files so the debugger can trace the code back to the editable source. However, I also have a larger patch that supersedes this one, but it changes behavior. I just wanted to get this out first in case the later one is deemed a bad idea. The la

[PATCH] More documentation on adding a new PMC

2002-01-02 Thread Steve Fink
Index: docs/vtables.pod === RCS file: /home/perlcvs/parrot/docs/vtables.pod,v retrieving revision 1.5 diff -u -r1.5 vtables.pod --- docs/vtables.pod8 Dec 2001 21:24:15 - 1.5 +++ docs/vtables.pod2 Jan 2002 21:24:06 -0

[PATCH] RCS Ids + capitalization + genclass.pl lib

2002-01-02 Thread Steve Fink
Small cleanup patch: - genclass.pl attempts to put $Id$ into generated files but the $Id$ string gets mangled when it's committed. This patch fixes the existing .pmc files and fixes genclass.pl. - Makes capitalization in .pmc header match actual filenames - The command for calling gencl

Solaris status

2002-01-02 Thread David M. Lloyd
Here's how things build on Solaris now: 32-bit: Perfect, beautiful, couldn't be better. 32-bit with 64-bit ints: OK, but many PMC tests fail, don't know why yet. 64-bit: Horrid. About 25% of tests are crashing, don't know why yet. The 32-bit with 64-bit ints problems should be duplicatable on a

Re: [Patch] "io/io_os.c", line 110: warning: statement not reached

2002-01-02 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 03:07 PM 1/2/2002 -0500, Melvin Smith wrote: >At 10:31 AM 1/2/2002 -0600, David M. Lloyd wrote: >>Silence this warning. >> >>Index: io/io_os.c >>=== >>RCS file: /home/perlcvs/parrot/io/io_os.c,v >>retrieving revision 1.2 >>diff -u

Re: [Patch] "io/io_os.c", line 110: warning: statement not reached

2002-01-02 Thread Melvin Smith
At 10:31 AM 1/2/2002 -0600, David M. Lloyd wrote: >Silence this warning. > >Index: io/io_os.c >=== >RCS file: /home/perlcvs/parrot/io/io_os.c,v >retrieving revision 1.2 >diff -u -r1.2 io_os.c >--- io/io_os.c 2 Jan 2002 04:10:50 -

[PATCH] "chartypes/unicode.c": warning: improper pointer/integercombination

2002-01-02 Thread David M. Lloyd
Silences this warning. Index: chartypes/unicode.c === RCS file: /home/perlcvs/parrot/chartypes/unicode.c,v retrieving revision 1.4 diff -u -r1.4 unicode.c --- chartypes/unicode.c 31 Dec 2001 20:00:37 - 1.4 +++ chartypes/unic

Re: TODOs for STRINGs

2002-01-02 Thread Tom Hughes
In message <20020102054642$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "David & Lisa Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Here is a short list of TODOs that I came up with for STRINGs. First, do > these look good to people? And second, what is the preferred method for > keeping track of these (patch to the TO

Re: [PATCH] string_transcode

2002-01-02 Thread Tom Hughes
In message <007f01c1930c$9d326220$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Peter Gibbs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Another correction to string_transcode; this function now seems to work okay > (tested using a dummy 'encode' op added to my local copy of core.ops) Applied, thanks. Tom -- Tom Hughes ([E

Test failing (win32)

2002-01-02 Thread Sterin, Ilya
The array_test #44 within pmc.t is segfaulting. Ilya

[Patch] "io/io_os.c", line 110: warning: statement not reached

2002-01-02 Thread David M. Lloyd
Silence this warning. Index: io/io_os.c === RCS file: /home/perlcvs/parrot/io/io_os.c,v retrieving revision 1.2 diff -u -r1.2 io_os.c --- io/io_os.c 2 Jan 2002 04:10:50 - 1.2 +++ io/io_os.c 2 Jan 2002 16:30:52 - @@ -1

[Patch] Fix for op write

2002-01-02 Thread David M. Lloyd
This patch fixes a pointer deref problem if sizeof(INTVAL) > sizeof(opcode_t). Index: core.ops === RCS file: /home/perlcvs/parrot/core.ops,v retrieving revision 1.67 diff -u -r1.67 core.ops --- core.ops2 Jan 2002 00:55:03 -

Re: [Patch] Change to Configure.pl for mixed 32 and 64-bit platforms

2002-01-02 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 10:09 AM 1/2/2002 -0600, David M. Lloyd wrote: >The incorrect assumption here is that you are building Parrot with the >same compiler and architecture (read: integer and pointer sizes) that Perl >was built with. Specifically, it allows my perl (64-bit ints but >otherwise 32-bit) to build a ful

[Patch] Change to Configure.pl for mixed 32 and 64-bit platforms

2002-01-02 Thread David M. Lloyd
The incorrect assumption here is that you are building Parrot with the same compiler and architecture (read: integer and pointer sizes) that Perl was built with. Specifically, it allows my perl (64-bit ints but otherwise 32-bit) to build a full 64-bit Parrot under Solaris. Maybe it helps other m

Re: Problem when ints are bigger than opcodes

2002-01-02 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 09:39 AM 1/2/2002 -0600, David M. Lloyd wrote: >Is it 'incorrect' to build Parrot with ints that are bigger than opcodes? No. >My 'some 64-bitness' build is generating warnings and failing tests >because of the pointer mismatch (long * vs long long *) between INTVAL and >opcode_t. This proba

Problem when ints are bigger than opcodes

2002-01-02 Thread David M. Lloyd
Is it 'incorrect' to build Parrot with ints that are bigger than opcodes? My 'some 64-bitness' build is generating warnings and failing tests because of the pointer mismatch (long * vs long long *) between INTVAL and opcode_t. Also, just out of curiosity, why is it INTVAL and opcode_t, rather tha

Re: [PATCH] Please keep MANIFEST sorted and up-to-date

2002-01-02 Thread Simon Cozens
On Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 10:30:14AM -0500, Andy Dougherty wrote: > This is a gentle reminder to please keep the MANIFEST file sorted and > up-to-date. Urgh, we have been naughty, haven't we? Thanks, applied. -- "MSDOS didn't get as bad as it is overnight -- it took over ten years of careful deve

[PATCH] Please keep MANIFEST sorted and up-to-date

2002-01-02 Thread Andy Dougherty
This is a gentle reminder to please keep the MANIFEST file sorted and up-to-date. The enclosed patch fixes things for the moment. (I used the Unix sort command, which does a case-sensitive sort. Feel free to disagree and use a case-insensitive sort if you wish.) But in either case, please do at

Re: [PATCH] clean 2748 more lines of warnings

2002-01-02 Thread Simon Cozens
On Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 01:38:28PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote: > This clears up about 458 of these: Cool. Thanks, applied. -- heh, yeah, but Aretha could be reading out /etc/services and kick just so much ass :)

[PATCH] clean 2748 more lines of warnings

2002-01-02 Thread Nicholas Clark
This clears up about 458 of these: In file included from jit.c:11: include/parrot/jit_struct.h:44: warning: missing initializer include/parrot/jit_struct.h:44: warning: (near initialization for `op_assembly[0].string_constant_value.info[0].flag') include/parrot/jit_struct.h:68: warning: missing i

How should we be signalling unused parameters?

2002-01-02 Thread Nicholas Clark
With all the warnings turned on, there are many many warnings of the form: ccore_ops.c: In function `Parrot_end':core_ops.c:25: warning: unused parameter `cur_opcode' core_ops.c:25: warning: unused parameter `interpreter' core_ops.c: In function `Parrot_noop': core_ops.c:30: warning: unused para

[PATCH Miniperl::Tokenizer] Shut up warning in test

2002-01-02 Thread Jonathan Stowe
This quietens a warning in the Tokenizer test: --- languages/miniperl/Miniperl/Tokenizer.pm~ Wed Jan 2 07:25:43 2002 +++ languages/miniperl/Miniperl/Tokenizer.pmWed Jan 2 07:34:56 2002 @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ use strict; use vars qw($VERSION); -$VERSION = '0.01'; +$VERSION = '0.02'; #---