On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 07:23:32PM -0500, Craig A. Berry wrote: > > On May 19, 2009, at 8:31 AM, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> >That code rings a bell. The only thing I can find that I did near it > >was: > > > >http://perl5.git.perl.org/perl.git/commit/35f998ddd1e1665f7d0899ae3e50f9262c59d848 > > > >However I had a suspicion that I also did something that restricted > >the upgrade > >to the minimal case. > > Maybe you were thinking of this: > > http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl5.changes/2008/09/msg22279.html Yes, it was exactly that one. Thanks. > >If this is the cause, I'm not sure whether the correct fix is to make > >mg_localize generally upgrade the new scalar to the type of the > >existing > >scalar, or special case it for $?. > > > Thanks for the analysis. I don't really know the implications of the > alternatives you propose. I assume a general change is more risky and > potentially adds unnecessary processing to hot code. To me the least > risky thing would be to add the following by analogy with what's > already going on in gv.c: > > --- mg.c;-0 2009-04-27 02:42:10 -0500 > +++ mg.c 2009-05-20 19:11:11 -0500 > @@ -974,6 +974,7 @@ Perl_magic_get(pTHX_ SV *sv, MAGIC *mg) > { > sv_setiv(sv, (IV)STATUS_CURRENT); > #ifdef COMPLEX_STATUS > + SvUPGRADE(sv, SVt_PVLV); > LvTARGOFF(sv) = PL_statusvalue; > LvTARGLEN(sv) = PL_statusvalue_vms; > #endif > [end] > > Does that make sense? > > This does fix the memory error that started this thread. I'm now > starting a complete test run to make sure nothing else goes pear-shaped. Presumably an upgrade check is also needed at any point that tries to read the complex status, as right now it could be using LvTARGOFF() or LvTARGLEN() on a localised $? that is only PVMG, not PVLV. Nicholas Clark
