# New Ticket Created by "Sean O'Rourke"
# Please include the string: [perl #19090]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=19090 >
The following defines a macro VA_TO_VAPTR(x) to convert va_list arguments
to pointers
Juergen Boemmels wrote:
Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
TODO:
- badly needed: line numbers in packfile (implying PBC extensions)
I have some toughts about PBC file extensions and some half working
code. Unfortunaltly my day time job consumes an enormous amount of
time at the mom
Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> TODO:
> - badly needed: line numbers in packfile (implying PBC extensions)
I have some toughts about PBC file extensions and some half working
code. Unfortunaltly my day time job consumes an enormous amount of
time at the moment. Lets see what i can t
Dan Sugalski wrote:
What I'd like is for folks to take the next day or three to think of the
things that they need parrot to do that aren't working or designed yet,
and throw them at the list.
TODO:
- badly needed: line numbers in packfile (implying PBC extensions)
- run through KNOWN_ISSUE
Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 11:29 AM -0500 12/12/02, Simon Glover wrote:
Weird. It doesn't die for me, which is annoying. We'll work it into a
test and see where it does fail in the tinderbox.
The newly added test case #2 was -hmmm- somewhat wrong.
leo - no segfault
On Thu, 12 Dec 2002, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> Simon Glover wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 12 Dec 2002, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> >>Simon Glover wrote:
>
> >>> Also, the above code (and the original version) still segfaults if I run
> >>> it with --gc-debug.
>
> >>With my recent changes in dod.c/headers.c ch
On Thu, 12 Dec 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 11:29 AM -0500 12/12/02, Simon Glover wrote:
> >On Thu, 12 Dec 2002, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> >
> >> Simon Glover wrote:
> >>
> >> > Also, the above code (and the original version) still segfaults if I run
> >> > it with --gc-debug.
> >>
> >>
> >
Simon Glover wrote:
On Thu, 12 Dec 2002, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Simon Glover wrote:
Also, the above code (and the original version) still segfaults if I run
it with --gc-debug.
With my recent changes in dod.c/headers.c checked out from CVS?
Yep. I've just double-checked with a complete
At 11:29 AM -0500 12/12/02, Simon Glover wrote:
On Thu, 12 Dec 2002, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Simon Glover wrote:
> Also, the above code (and the original version) still segfaults if I run
> it with --gc-debug.
With my recent changes in dod.c/headers.c checked out from CVS?
Yep. I've j
Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 1:12 PM +0100 12/11/02, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Changes #6.
- PMC_*_FLAGs are history.
- I did remove the bogus looking, unused, untested and superfluous
from core.ops
It's not actually superfluous. If for some reason someone wants to write
part of the GC cleanup swe
On Thu, 12 Dec 2002, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> Simon Glover wrote:
>
> > Also, the above code (and the original version) still segfaults if I run
> > it with --gc-debug.
>
>
> With my recent changes in dod.c/headers.c checked out from CVS?
Yep. I've just double-checked with a completely fresh
Simon Glover wrote:
On Thu, 12 Dec 2002, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
This still doesn't answer my question, though: is the fact that the keys
are passed by reference a bug or a feature?
hash.c works like this. If it's a bug or feature WRT properties - I
don't know.
Also, the above code (an
At 1:12 PM +0100 12/11/02, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Changes #6.
- PMC_*_FLAGs are history.
- I did remove the bogus looking, unused, untested and superfluous
from core.ops
It's not actually superfluous. If for some reason someone wants to
write part of the GC cleanup sweep in pasm, they'll need
At 8:30 AM + 12/11/02, Jerome Quelin (via RT) wrote:
Thanks to bf's example, I'm now writing Befunge Makefile while
configuring Parrot. I hope that I did not miss sthg important. Please
note that $PARROT/languages/befunge/Makefile should go (the patch only
empties it AFAICT) - and I removed it
At 4:51 PM +0100 12/12/02, Juergen Boemmels wrote:
Steve Fink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Heads up. The weather report indicates a feature freeze on Sat
2002-Dec-14 at 20:00 GMT (12:00 PST, 15:00 EST, 21:00 CET), leading to
a release on Wed 2002-Dec-18. So if you have any feature changes that
At 10:47 AM -0500 12/12/02, Simon Glover wrote:
This still doesn't answer my question, though: is the fact that the keys
are passed by reference a bug or a feature?
Feature. The crashing, though, is a bug. And (D'oh!) I know where,
too--the GC doesn't know about the prop hash member so it's n
Steve Fink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Heads up. The weather report indicates a feature freeze on Sat
> 2002-Dec-14 at 20:00 GMT (12:00 PST, 15:00 EST, 21:00 CET), leading to
> a release on Wed 2002-Dec-18. So if you have any feature changes that
> you want to get into 0.0.9 (and it isn't too de
On Thu, 12 Dec 2002, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> Simon Glover wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 11 Dec 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Are in. You can now get, set, delete, and get a hash of PMC
> >>properties. (Hopefully)
> >>
> >>Alas, no tests. Working on that, but if someone wants to beat me to
> >>it,
Simon Glover wrote:
On Wed, 11 Dec 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Are in. You can now get, set, delete, and get a hash of PMC
properties. (Hopefully)
Alas, no tests. Working on that, but if someone wants to beat me to
it, feel free.
I would expect this:
new P0, .PerlInt
new P1
Stabs gdb support now can show parrot registers.
e.g. complicated program:
set I0, 10
set N1, 1.1
set S2, "abc"
(gdb) p I0
$2 = 10
(gdb) p N1
$3 = 1.1001
(gdb) p *S2
$4 = {bufstart = 0x815ad30, buflen = 15, flags = 336128, bufused = 3,
strstart = 0x815ad30 "abc"}
(gdb
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dan --
We were talking earlier about Jako supporting native calls. I have looked
at PDD 6 and PDD 3, and here's what I think so far...
I don't think I can get the native call stuff working until I have IMCC
support
for PDD 3. IMCC is totally in charge of what goes into
Leopold Toetsch (via RT) wrote:
# New Ticket Created by Leopold Toetsch
# Please include the string: [perl #18745]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=18745 >
I did put in a patch based on #18745
- jit/i386 tes
Leopold Toetsch (via RT) wrote:
# New Ticket Created by Leopold Toetsch
# Please include the string: [perl #18782]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=18782 >
As no one complained (or answered) I have checked in
> Are the Tru64 registers scanned for live PMCs/Buffers? I don't know
> what things would typically get missed that way, but it's a known
> problem for most architectures (or was until recently? What's the
> status on this?)
I don't know if they are or not. How could you tell?
> Does Tru64 have
Simon Glover wrote:
On Wed, 11 Dec 2002, Simon Glover wrote:
Is this a bug, or am I misunderstanding how properties are supposed to
work?
I did check in (a totally untested) fix.
leo
25 matches
Mail list logo
