On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Tom Hughes wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Simon Glover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I've just had a quick look at hash.h (which I should have done in the > > first place) and you're quite right. Second attempt at a correct patch > > below. > > > > All tests still pass, but this isn't much comfort, as the fact that the > > preceding patch 'worked' suggests that nothing's actually testing this > > line of code. I'll see if I can do something to remedy this tomorrow, > > unless somebody beats me to it. > > That looks better, although you can actually get rid of the cast > once you do that as pmc_val has the right type. > OK, third time lucky... the patch below removes the cast as Tom suggests, and also adds a test case to perlhash.t that exercises the code. Simon --- classes/perlhash.pmc.old Wed Oct 9 15:59:29 2002 +++ classes/perlhash.pmc Thu Oct 10 11:42:26 2002 @@ -189,7 +189,7 @@ pmclass PerlHash { if (!nextkey) return entry->val.pmc_val; return entry->val.pmc_val->vtable->get_pmc_keyed(INTERP, - entry, nextkey); + entry->val.pmc_val, nextkey); } internal_exception(OUT_OF_BOUNDS, --- t/pmc/perlhash.t.old Thu Oct 10 11:43:29 2002 +++ t/pmc/perlhash.t Thu Oct 10 11:46:14 2002 @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ #! perl -use Parrot::Test tests => 16; +use Parrot::Test tests => 17; use Test::More; output_is(<<'CODE', <<OUTPUT, "simple set / get"); @@ -537,4 +537,19 @@ ok 5 ok 6 OUTPUT +output_is(<<'CODE', <<OUTPUT, "Getting PMCs from compound keys"); + new P0, .PerlHash + new P1, .PerlHash + new P2, .PerlInt + set P2, 12 + set P1["b"], P2 + set P0["a"], P1 + set P3, P0["a";"b"] + print P3 + print "\n" + end +CODE +12 +OUTPUT + 1;
