Andy Dougherty:
> Oh, agreed in general. Specifically, though, is this one of those rare
> occasions?
I don't think so. We always want to treat the bytecode as opcode_t*. Change
it, and if it breaks, we'll find out why and fix *that* instead. :)
--
Actually Perl *can* be a Bondage & Discipline
On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Simon Cozens wrote:
> Andy Dougherty:
> > Well, I know (at least) two ways to get rid of the warnings. I just don't
> > know which one's right. For example, making the bytecode be type
> > opcode_t* instead of char* gets rid of a lot of them
>
> Generally when I see char* in
On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Brent Dax wrote:
> Jonathan Stowe:
> # - if(!(targ=Parrot_sprintf_c(interpreter, "%S at %S line
> # %d.\n", targ, interpreter->current_file,
> # interpreter->current_line))) {
> # + if(!(targ=Parrot_sprintf_c(interpreter, (const char
> # *)"%S at %S line %d.\n", targ, inte
Jonathan Stowe:
# - if(!(targ=Parrot_sprintf_c(interpreter, "%S at %S line
# %d.\n", targ, interpreter->current_file,
# interpreter->current_line))) {
# + if(!(targ=Parrot_sprintf_c(interpreter, (const char
# *)"%S at %S line %d.\n", targ, interpreter->current_file,
# interpreter->current_
On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Jonathan Stowe wrote:
> This might spoil someones future plans but doesn't break anything existing
> AFAICT - apart from those pesky ones left in misc.c the only ones left
> should be from generated code which I have a plan for which I will share
> later :)
>
This is the same
Andy Dougherty:
> Well, I know (at least) two ways to get rid of the warnings. I just don't
> know which one's right. For example, making the bytecode be type
> opcode_t* instead of char* gets rid of a lot of them
Generally when I see char* in the source, I wonder why it's wrong and
what it shou
On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 05:19:07PM -0500, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> > Well, those and the 86
> >
> > cast increases required alignment of target type
> >
> > warnings we still get all over the place on SPARC :-).
>
> Gah. You're winning. :-(
> The
On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 05:19:07PM -0500, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> Well, those and the 86
>
> cast increases required alignment of target type
>
> warnings we still get all over the place on SPARC :-).
Gah. You're winning. :-(
There are only 79 of them on ARM.
Nicholas Clark
--
EMCFT ht
On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Jonathan Stowe wrote:
>
> > AFAICT - apart from those pesky ones left in misc.c the only ones left
> > should be from generated code which I have a plan for which I will share
> > later :)
>
> Well, those and the 86
>
> cast inc
On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Jonathan Stowe wrote:
> AFAICT - apart from those pesky ones left in misc.c the only ones left
> should be from generated code which I have a plan for which I will share
> later :)
Well, those and the 86
cast increases required alignment of target type
warnings we
On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Melvin Smith wrote:
>(I Wrote):
> >diff -u -r1.12 jit.c
> >--- jit.c 29 Jan 2002 14:05:31 - 1.12
> >+++ jit.c 5 Feb 2002 20:46:43 -
> >@@ -214,7 +214,7 @@
> > address = (INTVAL *)&s->strlen;
> > br
: [PATCH] Nearly the last of
the warnings
This might spoil someones future plans but doesn't break anything existing
AFAICT - apart from those pesky ones left in misc.c the only ones left
should be from generated code which I have a plan for which I will share
later :)
Index: jit.c
13 matches
Mail list logo
