On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 11:17:33PM -0700, Will Coleda via RT wrote:
> Let's borrow the syntax from the makefile generation itself, and
> just have RM_F's definition be:
>
> +rm_f => '@perl@ -MExtUtils::Command -e rm_f',
>
> [...]
>
> Additionally (though it won't help the original
On Sat Apr 12 07:57:11 2008, particle wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 12:15 PM, via RT Bernhard Schmalhofer
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > # New Ticket Created by Bernhard Schmalhofer
> > # Please include the string: [perl #52776]
> > # in the subject line of all future correspondence about
On Tue Nov 27 14:08:00 2007, pmichaud wrote:
> Today we cleaned up a lot of the unused branches of the
> Parrot repository. One of the branches that remains is
> the 'gcm' branch, created by "heimdall" and last updated
> on 2005-09-13. Supposedly this is an implementation of
> a generational gc a
On Mon Oct 22 17:54:38 2007, coke wrote:
>
> On Oct 22, 2007, at 3:25 PM, Allison Randal (via RT) wrote:
>
> > # New Ticket Created by Allison Randal
> > # Please include the string: [perl #46711]
> > # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
> > # http://rt.perl.org/
On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 7:34 PM, Vasily Chekalkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> jerry gay wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 2:46 PM, Moritz Lenz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Oops, forgot to attach patch. Now it's really there.
>>>
>> thanks, applied as of r28074.
>> ~jerry
>
> This is wron
On Thu Jun 05 22:21:47 2008, coke wrote:
> On Sun Jul 29 18:21:48 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
> >
> > All of the above having been said, I think what I wrote as a Comment
> in
> > the POD for this method back in December is still valid:
> >
> > "The purpose of this method is unclear.
On Mon Jun 18 06:12:50 2007, particle wrote:
> Exporter PMC has been created. this ticket is still open because i am
> waiting on the new object model and pmc layout in order to make this
> subclassable in c and pir.
> ~jerry
Is this still blocking?
On Thu Jun 05 18:11:48 2008, pmichaud wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 05:58:27PM -0700, Will Coleda wrote:
> > The Version PMC is a skeleton that doesn't do anything, and isn't
> > really used anywhere else in the repository.
> >
> > Attached patch removes it. I think we can safely do this in adv
On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 8:12 AM, Andy Dougherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Jun 2008, Will Coleda via RT wrote:
>
>> On Tue May 15 14:54:01 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> > On Wednesday 09 May 2007 07:21:44 Andy Dougherty wrote:
>> >
>> > > [appending to an old ticket, since if anyone
On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 12:01 PM, via RT Reini Urban
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> # New Ticket Created by Reini Urban
> # Please include the string: [perl #55408]
> # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
> # http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=55408 >
>
>
>
# New Ticket Created by Reini Urban
# Please include the string: [perl #55408]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=55408 >
---
osname= cygwin
osvers= 1.5.25(0.15642)
arch= cygwin-thread-multi-64int
cc= gcc
On Fri, 6 Jun 2008, Steve Peters wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 8:12 AM, Andy Dougherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 5 Jun 2008, Will Coleda via RT wrote:
> >
> >> If the patch is applied, is this ticket safe to close now?
> >
> > No. It's still the case that the sun4/SPARC jit is brok
This is no longer an issue so I'm closing the ticket.
Pm
On Mon Jun 04 23:15:17 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> After a little prodding around, I think the problem is that the dynops
> aren't build with the rpath. I don't know how "proper" the following
> patch is(i.e. linux doesn't seem to have a problem so either this is
> right or the other way i
On Sun Aug 12 12:59:50 2007, rgrjr wrote:
>From: "James Keenan via RT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 10:05:16 -0700
>
>I don't know much about MethodEmitter.pm, so I don't have any
>preferences. I think tewk has done most of the recent work in this
>area, so he m
On Fri Jan 18 21:41:00 2008, japhb wrote:
> ---
> osname= linux
> osvers= 2.6.22.10
> arch= i486-linux-gnu-thread-multi
> cc= cc
> ---
> Flags:
> category=core
> severity=low
> ack=no
> ---
> The error message from parrot when there is a spelling mismatch
>between
> a function
On Fri Jun 06 01:07:56 2008, bacek wrote:
> Hello.
New version of fix after jonathan comments.
--
Bacek.
range2.diff
Description: Binary data
On Thu Jul 29 12:35:12 2004, jhi wrote:
> Freshly checked out parrot (as of Jul-28 8pm GMTish) when configured
> with "--floatval='long double'" runs into trouble in a x86 system (*):
>
> ...
> ./parrot config_lib.pasm
> If the next line prints 0.1.0-devel, it did help.
> ./parrot parrot-config.im
Thanks for the patch! This is a great idea, and I've been thinking
along similar lines for PGE -- especially with respect to supporting
longest token matching.
However, AFAICT there aren't many (any?) other places in Parrot that
would use this opcode, and so rather than add this opcode and then
On Mon Dec 05 08:11:04 2005, dcd wrote:
>
> this is an older slackware derivative with one of the last libc5
> systems,
> May 13 1998 libc.so.5 -> libc.so.5.4.44*
> Feb 1 1998 libc.so.5.4.44*
> but it does use recent (2.4.32) kernel header files.
>
> On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 at 06:34 -0800
On Tue Apr 22 22:55:28 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tuesday 22 April 2008 04:33:49 Seneca Cunningham via RT wrote:
>
> > Lets the build complete, but a similar crash (similar stack frames,
> > different addresses) occurs when running t/op/sprintf.t when subtest
> 174 is
> > reached.
>
> Go
On Thu, 5 Jun 2008, Will Coleda via RT wrote:
> On Tue May 15 14:54:01 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Wednesday 09 May 2007 07:21:44 Andy Dougherty wrote:
> >
> > > [appending to an old ticket, since if anyone wants to ever get this
> > > working again, they'll probably have to fix up the
On Thu, 5 Jun 2008, Will Coleda via RT wrote:
> On Tue Jan 15 20:08:22 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Patches applied to trunk in r24898.
>
> Can we close this ticket if the patches are applied?
Yes, this one can be closed.
--
Andy Dougherty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 4:39 AM, via RT Seneca Cunningham
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I had started an attempt to determine which test in rakudo's spectest
> was causing a SIGBUS on my system (OS X 10.5, ppc) by manually running
> tests that occurred at the appropriate moment in time when the firs
Closed.
# New Ticket Created by "Seneca Cunningham"
# Please include the string: [perl #55372]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=55372 >
I had started an attempt to determine which test in rakudo's spectest
was causing
On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 6:15 AM, via RT Will Coleda
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not sure that supporting this option (And having to fix bugs to do
> it) is worth it. If we can remove this, we can also remove anything in
> the code that is ifdef'd around MINIPARROT.
Several minipparot related
27 matches
Mail list logo
