On Mon, 2005-10-31 at 20:12 +, Nick Glencross wrote:
> I certainly agree about what was being said about supporting multiple
> backends as it protects us against future nasty platforms. However, I'm
> unclear what the benefits of the favoured option of using JIT code was;
> that sounds like
Getting the following error on 'nmake realclean', a popup (why on
earth can't I cut and paste this error!#$#) with:
perl.exe: Application error:
The instruction at "0x7c93426d" referenced memory at "0x".
The memory could not be "read".
Click on "OK". Get a second popup:
perl.exe -
Garrett Goebel wrote:
Nick Glencross wrote:
As mentioned on the list yesterday I started evaluating ffcall
as a way of providing NCI functionality.
http://www.haible.de/bruno/packages-ffcall.html
I actually really like the current NCI implementation, although
it suffers from a large nci.c
Bernhard Schmalhofer via RT wrote:
it looks like recent PGE changes broke 'Parrot m4'.
I have boiled it down to a 20 line test cast and added it
as test 4 in t/library/pge.t. This test case fails, at least under my
Linux installation, with a segmentation fault.
It looks like a GC bug, kind o
Nick Glencross wrote:
>
> As mentioned on the list yesterday I started evaluating ffcall
> as a way of providing NCI functionality.
>
> http://www.haible.de/bruno/packages-ffcall.html
>
> I actually really like the current NCI implementation, although
> it suffers from a large nci.c file and all
> [bernhard - So 30. Okt 2005, 04:35:45]:
>
> Hi,
>
> it looks like recent PGE changes broke 'Parrot m4'.
> I have boiled it down to a 20 line test cast and added it
> as test 4 in t/library/pge.t. This test case fails, at least under my
> Linux installation, with a segmentation fault.
>
> My
On Oct 31, 2005, at 7:49, John Lenz wrote:
On Fri, October 28, 2005 2:22 pm, Nick Glencross said:
Guys,
As mentioned on the list yesterday I started evaluating ffcall as a
way
of providing NCI functionality.
http://www.haible.de/bruno/packages-ffcall.html
I am a SWIG (www.swig.org) dev
