Re: Patch vaporized?

> Either merge them or close 26056 as wontfix or equivalent (sorry, I'm > a Bugzilla feak :). The first patch has conflicts with current source, > which is why I freaked out when it didn't show up pronto. Done. Sorry for the trouble. -R

Re: Patch vaporized?

On Thursday, February 5, 2004, at 11:35 , Robert Spier wrote: I think I've tracked this down, mostly. The patch was rejected from the mailing list because it was too big. (Several hundred k.) That's what I figured. You can find it in RT as 26056: [PATCH] Unify PMC accessor macros 2 26057: [PA

Re: Patch vaporized?

I think I've tracked this down, mostly. The patch was rejected from the mailing list because it was too big. (Several hundred k.) You can find it in RT as 26056: [PATCH] Unify PMC accessor macros 2 26057: [PATCH] Unified PMC/PObj accessors phase 2 (26057 is one that points to a URL. Gordon,

Re: Alignment Issues with *ManagedStruct?

On Thursday, February 5, 2004, at 05:23 , Leopold Toetsch wrote: Nested structs are ugly. The alignment of the first item seems to depend on the biggest item in the struct. [...] Yeah, the struct is aligned to align the largest element therein. e.g.: struct { char; struct { char; char; char; } }

[PATCH] Unified PMC/PObj accessors phase 2

Leo, The patch is at the URL below, and I've split it into 4 for you. The classes-include-lib patch must be applied before any of the other 3. I've resolved the 3-4 conflicts that occurred since the patch was first abortively submitted on Monday, so the old patch (named 20040202-pmc-accessors.

Re: Alignment Issues with *ManagedStruct?

boy, was this easy with this module. all we need to do is mess around with the output to get whatever leo needs. with this struct (from leo with some minor changes): struct xt { char x; struct yt { char i,k; int j; } Y; char z; } X

Re: event.c - of signals and pipes

> > events.c(67) : error C2061: syntax error : identifier 'sig_int' > > sig_atomic_t needs config support. > Or as you said below, move all signal stuff to platform code - then I guess we have config support for it without anything new/extra/special. > > events.c(564) : error C2065: 'fd_set' : und

Re: Patch vaporized?

> Did it have an executable attachment? :-) If anyone wants some MyDoom, I've got over a gigabyte (from the past 19 or so hours) absorbed by the perl.org servers I'd be glad to share with you. I can arrange for them to be emailed one at a time, or all at once. -R

Re: Patch vaporized?

At Thu, 5 Feb 2004 11:25:22 -0500, Gordon Henriksen wrote: > > [1 ] > I've submitted a patch to bugs-parrot, and it didn't seem to get posted > to RT or otherwise handled. Anyone know where it might've gone? I'm the one who would know. Please email me off-list with the message-id, subject, from

Re: Alignment Issues with *ManagedStruct?

Uri Guttman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "LT" == Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > LT> I'll do the alignment stuff. An util that actually generates the > good but util(ity) is pronounced with a hard 'u' as in 'you'. so that > should be 'a' and not an>. Hey - thanks for that.

Re: Patch vaporized?

Gordon Henriksen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It was a very lage patch, however; it converts pmc->cache.int_val > etc. to PObj_int_val(pmc) etc. across the entire source tree. (Sorry, > Leo, by far the easiest way to find them all was to change the field > names and fix them as make found them; rat

Re: Alignment Issues with *ManagedStruct?

> "LT" == Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: LT> Uri Guttman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > "LT" == Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> i am playing with ExtUtil::XSParser now LT> ... but I hope that people out there are speaking Perl and can help with LT>

Re: [DOCS] Documentation tools

> I can possibly help it, so it's ok by me to delete lib/Pod, if that's > the consensus. I'm not sure what the consensus is. But we should probably come to one. -R

Re: RT Cleanup

Melvin: Here's a warnocked imcc issue for you: http://bugs6.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=24251 I don't have a suggested patch, sorry. Regards. On Sunday, February 1, 2004, at 04:42 PM, Stephane Peiry wrote: On Sun, 2004-02-01 at 01:42, Will Coleda wrote: 24251 - warnocked I don't like

RE: Patch vaporized?

Larry Wall wrote: > Gordon Henriksen wrote: > > > I've submitted a patch to bugs-parrot, and it didn't seem > > to get posted to RT or otherwise handled. Anyone know where it > > might've gone? > > Did it have an executable attachment? :-) Thanks, Larry, but no. :) It was a very lage patch,

Re: PIR version of Data::Dumper

On Thu, Feb 05, 2004 at 02:35:38PM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote: > Jens Rieks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Here is a first version of a "Data::Dumper" i've written to be able to dump > > the AST of my C parser. > > Wow, fine. > > > A dumpertest.imc is included, which shows the dumper in acti

Re: Alignment Issues with *ManagedStruct?

> "LT" == Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: LT> I'll do the alignment stuff. An util that actually generates the . LT> initializer - as outlined in the previous posting - would be great LT> though. i am playing with ExtUtil::XSParser now and i have some problems with it. i w

Re: Re: RT Cleanup

On Wed, 4 Feb 2004, Steve Fink wrote: > Try > cd languages/perl6 > ./perl6 --force-grammar -e 1 # don't worry if it fails > make test $ ./perl6 --force-grammar -e 1 error:imcc:fixup_bsrs: couldn't find addr of sub '_main' Error: '/home/doughera/src/parrot/parrot-andy/parrot -r __eval_

Re: Alignment Issues with *ManagedStruct?

Uri Guttman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > LT> Nested structs are ugly. The alignment of the first item seems to depend > LT> on the biggest item in the struct. > that is a known rule for alignment of nested structs. since larger items > usually have strict alignment requirements Ok. Then I'll t

Re: Some minor decisions and timetables

> "DS" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: DS> At 4:28 PM +0100 2/4/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote: >> Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Okay, here's a quick scoop and status. >> >>> *) I'd like to shoot for a Feb 14th release. Names wanted. (I'm >>> partial to the bl

Re: Alignment Issues with *ManagedStruct?

> "LT" == Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: LT> Chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: LT> [ align issues ] LT> Nested structs are ugly. The alignment of the first item seems to depend LT> on the biggest item in the struct. that is a known rule for alignment of nested structs

Re: [CVS ci] pointers to struct

Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've committed a first attempt to handle pointers to contained structs. > Please have a look at src/nci_test.c:nci_pi (case 4) and t/pmc/nci_19. And another one, handling call_back functions passed in from external. Again: > For testing please run: >

Re: Patch vaporized?

On Thu, Feb 05, 2004 at 11:25:22AM -0500, Gordon Henriksen wrote: : I've submitted a patch to bugs-parrot, and it didn't seem to get posted : to RT or otherwise handled. Anyone know where it might've gone? Did it have an executable attachment? :-) Larry

Patch vaporized?

I've submitted a patch to bugs-parrot, and it didn't seem to get posted to RT or otherwise handled. Anyone know where it might've gone? http://www.parrotcode.org/openpatches isn't working ("ERROR RETRIEVING DATA"). -- Gordon Henriksen IT Manager ICLUBcent

[CVS ci] pointers to struct

I've committed a first attempt to handle pointers to contained structs. Please have a look at src/nci_test.c:nci_pi (case 4) and t/pmc/nci_19. The information for the contained structure is currently a property of that initializer element. I hope this syntax is ok. For testing please run: make

Re: PIR version of Data::Dumper

Am Donnerstag, 5. Februar 2004 16:25 schrieb Jens Rieks: > Am Donnerstag, 5. Februar 2004 14:35 schrieb Leopold Toetsch: > > Jens Rieks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Here is a first version of a "Data::Dumper" i've written to be able to > > > dump the AST of my C parser. > > > > Wow, fine. > > >

Re: PIR version of Data::Dumper

Am Donnerstag, 5. Februar 2004 14:35 schrieb Leopold Toetsch: > Jens Rieks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Here is a first version of a "Data::Dumper" i've written to be able to > > dump the AST of my C parser. > > Wow, fine. > > > A dumpertest.imc is included, which shows the dumper in action. > >

Re: Some minor decisions and timetables

At 4:28 PM +0100 2/4/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote: Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Okay, here's a quick scoop and status. *) I'd like to shoot for a Feb 14th release. Names wanted. (I'm partial to the bleeding heart release, but not that partial) I had planned towards Feb 29th. A nice date

Re: Alignment Issues with *ManagedStruct?

On Thu, Feb 05, 2004 at 11:04:40AM +0100, Jens Rieks wrote: > > > > > > I thought of that too. A Perl script that takes a C struct and emits an > > *ManagedStruct initializer. WRT align: as such struct initializers are > > in library code and used by different machines, I'd rather have the > > alig

Another note WRT *ManagedStruct

For hysterical raisins there is still an old compat layer in these PMCs, that provides a char* like access to PMC_data() and a get_integer() that does weird things, in the absence of a struct initializer. If no one hollers, I'll just remove that cruft. It simplifies the general case a lot e.g.

Re: PIR version of Data::Dumper

Jens Rieks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Here is a first version of a "Data::Dumper" i've written to be able to dump > the AST of my C parser. Wow, fine. > A dumpertest.imc is included, which shows the dumper in action. s/included/missing/ :) > I'am sorry, but I have no idea how to convert th

PIR version of Data::Dumper

Here is a first version of a "Data::Dumper" i've written to be able to dump the AST of my C parser. A dumpertest.imc is included, which shows the dumper in action. I'am sorry, but I have no idea how to convert this to a test. BTW, is the order of the hash elements guaranteed to be equal across p

Re: Alignment Issues with *ManagedStruct?

Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > gen_struct --force-align file.imc It seems that this part finally has to consult the C compiler, i.e. generate a test program and parse the offsetof() values of struct items. The problem is nested structs, s. classes/unmanagedstruct.pmc for some com

Re: Alignment Issues with *ManagedStruct?

Jens Rieks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'am currently writing a simple C-parser in imc. My plan is to extract > all structs, enums, unions and typedefs in order to create > ManagedStructs automatically. If one goes even a step further, it > should even be possible to create pasm/imc wrapper for

Re: [DOCS] Documentation tools

Ah, ok, my bad then. I'd just assumed that, apart from any need for modification, the other things were there simply to save having to tell everyone to go off and get them. I don't intend to change Pod-Simple if I can possibly help it, so it's ok by me to delete lib/Pod, if that's the consensus

Re: Alignment Issues with *ManagedStruct?

Chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [ align issues ] Nested structs are ugly. The alignment of the first item seems to depend on the biggest item in the struct. struct { char // 0 struct { char// 1 } char // 2 } struct { char

Re: Alignment Issues with *ManagedStruct?

Am Donnerstag, 5. Februar 2004 09:45 schrieb Leopold Toetsch: > Uri Guttman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > printf( "%d event.type\n", (char *)&kbevent.type ) - (char *)&kbevent ; > > offsetof(struct, item) > > is used inside parrot/jit/* > > > want me to hack up this little script and c gener

Re: Alignment Issues with *ManagedStruct?

Uri Guttman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > printf( "%d event.type\n", (char *)&kbevent.type ) - (char *)&kbevent ; offsetof(struct, item) is used inside parrot/jit/* > want me to hack up this little script and c generation stuff? the hard > part is parsing the struct so i would have to as