It appears that #include and #define directives within an ops file
aren't respected. Is this the case? I have something like this at the
top of rx.ops:
/*
** rx.ops
*/
#include "parrot/rx.h"
#define RxAssertMore(rx, branchto) if(rx->index >=
string_length(rx->string)) { goto OFFSET(branchto);
This one is quite useful to anyone who's fiddling around with additional
oplibs. It adds a prompt to Configure asking for a list of opcode files
to use. The default is everything available except for obscure.ops.
In addition, it makes it so that if your answer to a question starts
with '+', it
On Fri, Jan 04, 2002 at 11:00:45PM -0500, Jeff G wrote:
> new P0,PerlHash
> set P0,-6,"foo" # Store the value -6 in key 'foo' of the hash P0
> set I0,P0,"foo" # Recover the value at "foo"
Very, very, cool. However, I'm not convinced that we're going about this
the right way.
Currently, we have v
On Sat, Jan 05, 2002 at 02:37:13AM -0800, Brent Dax wrote:
> It appears that #include and #define directives within an ops file
> aren't respected. Is this the case? I have something like this at the
> top of rx.ops:
>
> /*
> ** rx.ops
> */
>
> #include "parrot/rx.h"
That *ought* to work OK.
On Fri, Jan 04, 2002 at 03:14:05PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Want to apply the bits you want, then? Or shall I commit the whole thing?
I've committed the whole thing for now, since Parrot segfaults without it. :)
--
Testing can show the presense of bugs, but not their absence.
On Sat, Jan 05, 2002 at 12:58:31AM -0500, Josh Wilmes wrote:
> I've stuck in a dummy definition which allows it to get past that point:
Cool, thanks.
Simon
--
It would be different if I had an actual ambition to be a corporate pitbull
and be the righteous, noble paperwork warrior tirelessly fi
> -default.h
> +*.h
Thanks, applied.
--
Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
- Henry Spencer, University of Toronto Unix hack
On Sat, Jan 05, 2002 at 01:45:48AM -0800, Sterin, Ilya wrote:
> the pmc.t test 48 through 52 all fail. I've reported this two days ago
> as well, seems like it hasn't been fixed yet.
It's fixed now, thanks to Jason's work on PerlUndef.
--
BASH is great, it dumps core and has clear documentatio
On Fri, Jan 04, 2002 at 04:54:25PM -0600, Garrett Goebel wrote:
> Dan, back in Novemeber you mentioned talking with Eric Raymond about CML2 in
> the context of the configuration and build issues surrounding Parrot. What
> ever became of that?
IANDan, but here's the plan as I see it.
1) Move
Bryan --
> > > static void **
> > > prederef(void ** pc_prederef, struct Parrot_Interp * interpreter)
> > > {
> > > size_t offset = pc_prederef - interpreter->prederef_code;
> > > opcode_t * pc = ((opcode_t *)interpreter->code->byte_code) +
> > > offset;
> >
> > This is supposed to
On Friday 04 January 2002 05:54 pm, Garrett Goebel wrote:
> Dan, back in Novemeber you mentioned talking with Eric Raymond about CML2
> in the context of the configuration and build issues surrounding Parrot.
> What ever became of that?
>
> I've also been hearing the occassional peep about a soon
Simon Cozens:
# On Sat, Jan 05, 2002 at 02:37:13AM -0800, Brent Dax wrote:
# > It appears that #include and #define directives within an ops file
# > aren't respected. Is this the case? I have something like
# this at the
# > top of rx.ops:
# >
# > /*
# > ** rx.ops
# > */
# >
# > #include "parro
As is perhaps not surprising, given the speed at which Parrot is
evolving, our introduction could do with a bit of an update. The
enclosed patch is a first attempt at this; in it, I've tried to
remove some of the most out-of-date information. Specifically:
* IVs and NVs are now INTVALs
The recent removal of the iton/ntoi ops in favour of an extended meaning
of set causes jakoc to break. Enclosed patch fixes.
Cheers,
Simon
--- jakoc.old Sat Jan 5 21:29:10 2002
+++ jakoc Sat Jan 5 22:29:03 2002
@@ -625,7 +625,7 @@
#
if (substr($a, 0, 1) eq 'I' and num_
On January 5, 2002 05:23 am, you wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 04, 2002 at 11:00:45PM -0500, Jeff G wrote:
> > new P0,PerlHash
> > set P0,-6,"foo" # Store the value -6 in key 'foo' of the hash P0
> > set I0,P0,"foo" # Recover the value at "foo"
>
> Very, very, cool. However, I'm not convinced that we're go
15 matches
Mail list logo
