G'day all.
This patch introduces a new op parameter type "inconst", which is like
"in" except that it only produces const versions of the op (i.e. it
will not take values from registers).
This is mostly for the benefit of branch targets. The "feature" of
using register values as branch targets
Mike Lambert wrote:
>
> > Okay, that's bizarre. I'm going to try and track this down and see
> > what I can do about that.
>
> Before you get too far deep in it, I think David identified the problem in
> a later email. Basically, he has gcc 2.95 for Mac OS X. Unfortunatel,y, it
> doesn't seem to
Mike Lambert:
> check if they correctly support cgoto, and disable it if they don't. Given
> his Configure.pl output, his compiler is failing to compile
> testcomputedgoto.c, but yet it is still choosing to use the CGoto core
> when compiling Parrot.
This doesn't explain my test failures, though.
On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 05:43:01PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 10:16 PM +0100 4/17/02, Dave Mitchell wrote:
> >On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 04:57:21PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >> At 9:48 PM +0100 4/17/02, Dave Mitchell wrote:
> >> >On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 04:34:12PM -0400, Simon Glover wrote:
At 10:16 PM +0100 4/17/02, Dave Mitchell wrote:
>On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 04:57:21PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>> At 9:48 PM +0100 4/17/02, Dave Mitchell wrote:
>> >On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 04:34:12PM -0400, Simon Glover wrote:
>> >> I thought lexicals were going to live in a symbol table now?
On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 04:57:21PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 9:48 PM +0100 4/17/02, Dave Mitchell wrote:
> >On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 04:34:12PM -0400, Simon Glover wrote:
> >> I thought lexicals were going to live in a symbol table now? In which
> >> case, they're definitely going to depe
At 4:47 PM -0400 4/17/02, Simon Glover wrote:
> - Tests for the 5-argument form of substr
Applied, thanks.
--
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECT
At 4:47 PM -0400 4/17/02, Simon Glover wrote:
> - Tests for rotate-up and savec
Odd--my stacks.t only has 18 tests in it, not 20. Still, applied.
--
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski
On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, Dave Mitchell wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 04:34:12PM -0400, Simon Glover wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, Brent Dax wrote:
> >
> > > Dan Sugalski:
> > > # Okay, here are the milestones. Each is worth a point release. If we
> > > # manage to take them in this order, g
At 4:47 PM -0400 4/17/02, Simon Glover wrote:
>
> - Adds documentation for the two-arg. form of print
> - Rewritten description for rotate_up that's hopefully clearer
Applied, thanks.
--
Dan
--"it's like this"---
At 9:48 PM +0100 4/17/02, Dave Mitchell wrote:
>On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 04:34:12PM -0400, Simon Glover wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, Brent Dax wrote:
>>
>> > Dan Sugalski:
>> > # Okay, here are the milestones. Each is worth a point release. If we
>> > # manage to take them in this order, g
At 4:37 PM -0400 4/17/02, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 03:27:51PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>> Okay, here are the milestones. Each is worth a point release. If we
> > manage to take them in this order, great. :)
>
>I don't see "World Domination" or "Nervous Breakdown" in th
On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 04:34:12PM -0400, Simon Glover wrote:
>
> On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, Brent Dax wrote:
>
> > Dan Sugalski:
> > # Okay, here are the milestones. Each is worth a point release. If we
> > # manage to take them in this order, great. :)
> >
> > Rough dependency tree:
> >
> > Arrays
>
The enclosed patch makes a number of changes to perlstring.pmc, to bring
it in line with my understanding of how PMCs are supposed to work.
Specifically, unless we _know_ the type of the source and destination PMCs,
we should always access them through their get_... and set_... methods.
In
- Tests for the 5-argument form of substr
Simon
--- string.t.oldSat Apr 6 19:56:32 2002
+++ string.tSat Apr 6 20:38:59 2002
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
#! perl -w
-use Parrot::Test tests => 64;
+use Parrot::Test tests => 76;
output_is( <<'CODE', < length" );
+ set S0, "abcdefghijk"
+
- Tests for rotate-up and savec
Simon
--- stacks.t.oldSat Apr 6 13:47:09 2002
+++ stacks.tSat Apr 6 14:58:01 2002
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
#! perl -w
-use Parrot::Test tests => 20;
+use Parrot::Test tests => 28;
use Test::More;
# Tests for stack operations, currently push*, push_*_c
- Adds documentation for the two-arg. form of print
- Rewritten description for rotate_up that's hopefully clearer
Simon
--- core.ops.oldWed Apr 17 16:27:49 2002
+++ core.opsWed Apr 17 16:27:55 2002
@@ -229,8 +229,13 @@
=item B(in INT, in NUM)
+=item B(in INT, in STR)
+
=item
OK, this is advance warning that I'm about to be reposting a bunch
of patches of mine which appear to have succumbed to Warnock's Dilemma.
The first three should be uncontroversial: there's a documentation fix-up
for core.ops, and new tests for strings and stacks. The last one is
rather lar
On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 03:27:51PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Okay, here are the milestones. Each is worth a point release. If we
> manage to take them in this order, great. :)
>
> *) Working arrays
>
> *) Working hashes
>
> *) Regular expressions
>
> *) Symbol tables
>
> *) Method calls
>
On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, Brent Dax wrote:
> Dan Sugalski:
> # Okay, here are the milestones. Each is worth a point release. If we
> # manage to take them in this order, great. :)
>
> Rough dependency tree:
>
> Arrays
> Regular expressions (backreference storage)
> Parser (probabl
> Okay, that's bizarre. I'm going to try and track this down and see
> what I can do about that.
Before you get too far deep in it, I think David identified the problem in
a later email. Basically, he has gcc 2.95 for Mac OS X. Unfortunatel,y, it
doesn't seem to support computed goto. The Configu
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Roman Hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not too sure if this is necessary but it seems logical to get things
> into charsets our compilers can handle. Hopefully this is the correct
> approach . . . . also this should NULL terminate in the event that
Dan Sugalski:
# Okay, here are the milestones. Each is worth a point release. If we
# manage to take them in this order, great. :)
Rough dependency tree:
Arrays
Regular expressions (backreference storage)
Parser (probably)
Lexicals (probably, though could be a ha
Okay, here are the milestones. Each is worth a point release. If we
manage to take them in this order, great. :)
*) Working arrays
*) Working hashes
*) Regular expressions
*) Symbol tables
*) Method calls
*) Lexicals
*) Subroutines
*) Attributes
*) Per-object specials (variables & subs)
On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, Roman Hunt wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, Simon Glover wrote:
>
> # >+cstring[s->buflen + 1] = 0;
> good grief
>
> # >
> #
> # This is a buffer overflow; I'm not quite sure what you're trying to do,
> # but this certainly doesn't do it.
>
> shouldnt cstring[s->bufused +
On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, Simon Glover wrote:
# >+cstring[s->buflen + 1] = 0;
good grief
# >
#
# This is a buffer overflow; I'm not quite sure what you're trying to do,
# but this certainly doesn't do it.
shouldnt cstring[s->bufused +1] = \0
to keep us from clobbering the last char? or will st
On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 02:40:16PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 2:10 PM -0400 4/17/02, David Hand wrote:
> >Trying CVS parrot as of 1400 EDT (why not?), it still didn't work.
> >Interestingly, typing "long" both times that Configure suggests "long
> >long" doesn't work, either. (I get what app
On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, Simon Glover wrote:
# This is a buffer overflow; I'm not quite sure what you're trying to do,
# but this certainly doesn't do it.
I see now, I dont know what the hell I was thinking on that part, the
logic was correct to begin with. what about the transcoding though wouldn
On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, Roman Hunt wrote:
> Ehlo:
> I'm not too sure if this is necessary but it seems logical to get things
> into charsets our compilers can handle. Hopefully this is the correct
> approach . . . . also this should NULL terminate in the event that the
> entire buffer had not ye
At 2:10 PM -0400 4/17/02, David Hand wrote:
>On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 01:40:39PM -0400, Andy Dougherty wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, Andy Dougherty wrote:
>> > If I had to guess, I'd guess this was the problem. This is probably not
>> > as heavily-tested a Configuration as the plain 'long' ver
Ehlo:
I'm not too sure if this is necessary but it seems logical to get things
into charsets our compilers can handle. Hopefully this is the correct
approach . . . . also this should NULL terminate in the event that the
entire buffer had not yet been filled.
Roman
Index: string.c
Okay, on a whim, I tried `perl Configure.pl` again in both my
parrot-0.0.4 and parrot-0.0.5 directories, accepting all defaults.
The difference appears to be in the checking for computed goto. Of
course, Configure.pl *does* warn me that I may see some errors.
I have no idea why any of this woul
On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 01:40:39PM -0400, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> > If I had to guess, I'd guess this was the problem. This is probably not
> > as heavily-tested a Configuration as the plain 'long' version, and most of
> > that has probably been on lit
On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, David Hand wrote:
>
> > Mind you that this is Mac OS X 10.1.3, with a UFS root partition. This
> > was compiled on the UFS partition. Interestingly, parrot 0.0.4 compiled
> > okay. I recently tried compiling CVS parrot, but go
Simon Cozens:
> Just as a data point, CVS Parrot makes test fine under the same circumstances.
Guh, spoke too soon:
t/pmc/array.t 1 256 11 100.00% 1
t/pmc/perlstrin 1 256 81 12.50% 7
t/pmc/pmc.t 5 1280565 8.93% 49-53
--
I am familiar with this par
David Hand:
> Mind you that this is Mac OS X 10.1.3, with a UFS root partition.
Just as a data point, CVS Parrot makes test fine under the same circumstances.
> Hmm, I see your chosen INTVAL isn't the same size as your pointers. Parrot should
> still compile and run, but you may see a ton of w
36 matches
Mail list logo
