On 01/13/2012 07:09 PM, Alex Hunsaker wrote:
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 16:07, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 01/12/2012 09:28 PM, Alex Hunsaker wrote:
Util.c/o not depending on plperl_helpers.h was also throwing me for a loop
so I fixed it and SPI.c... Thoughts?
Basically looks good, but I'm conf
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 16:07, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> On 01/12/2012 09:28 PM, Alex Hunsaker wrote:
>>
>> Util.c/o not depending on plperl_helpers.h was also throwing me for a loop
>> so I fixed it and SPI.c... Thoughts?
>
>
> Basically looks good, but I'm confused by this:
>
> do language p
On 01/12/2012 09:28 PM, Alex Hunsaker wrote:
Util.c/o not depending on plperl_helpers.h was also throwing me for a
loop so I fixed it and SPI.c... Thoughts?
Basically looks good, but I'm confused by this:
do language plperl $$ elog('NOTICE', ${^TAINT}); $$;
Why is NOTICE quoted here?
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 14:05, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alex Hunsaker writes:
>> Oh my... I dunno exactly what I was smoking last night, but its a good
>> thing I didn't share :-). Uh so my test program was also completely
>> wrong, Ill have to redo it all. I've narrowed it down to:
>> if ((type
Alex Hunsaker writes:
> Oh my... I dunno exactly what I was smoking last night, but its a good
> thing I didn't share :-). Uh so my test program was also completely
> wrong, Ill have to redo it all. I've narrowed it down to:
> if ((type == SVt_PVGV || SvREADONLY(sv)))
> {
>
On 01/06/2012 02:02 PM, Alex Hunsaker wrote:
3. The above is in any case almost certainly insufficient, because in my
tests a typeglob didn't trigger SvREADONLY(), but did cause a crash.
Hrm the glob I was testing was *STDIN. It failed to fail in my test
program because I was not testing *STDI
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 06:34, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> PFA that copies if its readonly and its not a scalar.
>>
>> I didn't bother adding regression tests-- should I have?
> I have several questions.
>
> 1. How much are we actually saving here? newSVsv() ought to be pretty cheap,
> no? I imagine
On 01/06/2012 10:49 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Excerpts from Andrew Dunstan's message of vie ene 06 10:34:30 -0300 2012:
And yes, we should possibly add a regression test or two. Of course, we can't
use the cause of the original complaint ($^V) in them, though.
Why not? You obviously can't
Excerpts from Andrew Dunstan's message of vie ene 06 10:34:30 -0300 2012:
> And yes, we should possibly add a regression test or two. Of course, we can't
> use the cause of the original complaint ($^V) in them, though.
Why not? You obviously can't need output it verbatim, but you could
compare
On 01/05/2012 10:59 PM, Alex Hunsaker wrote:
After further digging I found it chokes on any non scalar (IOW any
reference). I attached a simple c program that I tested with 5.8.9,
5.10.1, 5.12.4 and 5.14.2 (for those who did not know about it,
perlbrew made testing across all those perls relati
On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 16:59, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> On 01/05/2012 06:31 PM, Alex Hunsaker wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 16:02, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>>
>>> Fix breakage from earlier plperl fix.
>> I can't help but think this seems a bit inefficient
>
> So, yes, we should probably ad
On 01/05/2012 06:31 PM, Alex Hunsaker wrote:
On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 16:02, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Fix breakage from earlier plperl fix.
Apparently the perl garbage collector was a bit too eager, so here
we control when the new SV is garbage collected.
I know im a little late to the party...
On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 16:02, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Fix breakage from earlier plperl fix.
>
> Apparently the perl garbage collector was a bit too eager, so here
> we control when the new SV is garbage collected.
I know im a little late to the party...
I can't help but think this seems a bit in
13 matches
Mail list logo
