On Thursday 21 June 2007 22:19:42 Andy Lester wrote:
> pmichaud and I figured today that the segfaulting in 06-grammar.t is
> caused by optimization, with the --optimize flag.
>
> However, it's not all the fault of --optimize. I've been working on
> valgrind, and there's some invalid memory acces
On Thursday 21 June 2007 17:44:38 Mark Glines wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 17:38:15 -0700
>
> chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > -return string_from_cstring(INTERP, "Str", 3);
> > > +return string_from_cstring(INTERP, "Bool", 3);
> > > return SUPER();
> > >
pmichaud and I figured today that the segfaulting in 06-grammar.t is
caused by optimization, with the --optimize flag.
However, it's not all the fault of --optimize. I've been working on
valgrind, and there's some invalid memory accessing going on.
There's a dump following. The key is in
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 17:38:15 -0700
chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > -return string_from_cstring(INTERP, "Str", 3);
> > +return string_from_cstring(INTERP, "Bool", 3);
> > return SUPER();
> > }
>
> That 3 looks like it should be 4.
Yep, fixed in r19238
On Thursday 21 June 2007 12:05:35 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Log:
> [perl6]:
> * Fix incorrect get_string() value in perl6bool.pmc (Infinoid++)
>
>
> Modified: trunk/languages/perl6/src/pmc/perl6bool.pmc
> ===
>=== --- trunk/l
In the next few days I will be creating a number of new RT [TODO]
tickets -- 56, to be precise, one for each of Parrot's current
configuration steps. These RT tickets will track progress in writing
unit tests for the Perl 5 packages under the config/ directory which
govern the individual step
I have sent two PRs for pdb and I have a third one not yet commited.
http://rt.perl.org/rt3//Ticket/Display.html?id=31159
http://rt.perl.org/rt3//Ticket/Display.html?id=37287
My third patch is about http://rt.perl.org/rt3//Ticket/Display.html?id=31163
(list breakpoints).
Ok, after the presentati
On 6/21/07, Joshua Isom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wait! Wait! It should be src, THEN dest!
Are you an AT&T guy or an Intel guy?
Neither! 68k assembly FTW!
--
Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Jun 21, 2007, at 12:57 PM, Mark J. Reed wrote:
On 6/21/07, Andy Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We now have STRUCT_COPY(dest,src) and STRUCT_COPY_N(dest,src,n) for
all your struct-copying needs.
Wait! Wait! It should be src, THEN dest!
--
Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Are you a
On 6/21/07, Andy Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We now have STRUCT_COPY(dest,src) and STRUCT_COPY_N(dest,src,n) for
all your struct-copying needs.
Wait! Wait! It should be src, THEN dest!
--
Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
We now have STRUCT_COPY(dest,src) and STRUCT_COPY_N(dest,src,n) for
all your struct-copying needs.
xoxo,
Andy
--
Andy Lester => [EMAIL PROTECTED] => www.petdance.com => AIM:petdance
On Jun 21, 2007, at 1:39 AM, Allison Randal wrote:
Andy Lester wrote:
I guess I don't see the need to document a standard C behavior
with a macro.
If you had read all the way through the message, you would see that
the biggest benefit is the ability to hang debugging hooks off the
macro
On Jun 21, 2007, at 8:57 AM, jerry gay wrote:
remember the days when we were C89 compliant? i do.
in fact, my compiler still lives in those days.
'inline' is a swear word.
Sorry 'bout that. I thought it was a leftover. Bad Andy for not
checking his assumptions, or even asking.
I updated
-- Forwarded message --
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Jun 20, 8:59 pm
Subject: r19207 - in trunk: compilers/imcc config/gen/makefiles tools/
build
To: perl.cvs.parrot
Author: petdance
Date: Wed Jun 20 20:58:59 2007
New Revision: 19207
Modified:
trunk/compilers/imcc/imcparser.c
chromatic wrote:
Classes are PMCs. Are there benefits to pushing them one step further and
making them Objects as well?
A PDD15 class is an object in so far as it's an instance of a PMC. A PMC
is a class, just written in C rather than PIR.
Jonathan
15 matches
Mail list logo
