Isn't this change modifying the test? (looks from the comment like
this was supposed to be checking needs_destroy)
On Oct 9, 2007, at 9:32 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: chromatic
Date: Tue Oct 9 18:32:11 2007
New Revision: 21998
Modified:
branches/pdd15oo/t/op/gc.t
Log:
[t] Make two more failing tests pass by being *less* aggressive
about GC runs.
Modified: branches/pdd15oo/t/op/gc.t
======================================================================
========
--- branches/pdd15oo/t/op/gc.t (original)
+++ branches/pdd15oo/t/op/gc.t Tue Oct 9 18:32:11 2007
@@ -44,7 +44,7 @@
pasm_output_is( <<'CODE', '1', "sweep 0, with object that need
destroy" );
interpinfo I1, 2 # How many DOD runs have we done already?
new P0, 'Undef'
- needs_destroy P0
+ null P0
sweep 0
interpinfo I2, 2 # Should be one more now
sub I3, I2, I1
@@ -55,7 +55,6 @@
pasm_output_is( <<'CODE', '10', "sweep 0, with object that need
destroy/destroy" );
interpinfo I1, 2 # How many DOD runs have we done already?
new P0, 'Undef'
- needs_destroy P0
new P0, 'Undef' # kill object
sweep 0
interpinfo I2, 2 # Should be one more now
--
Will "Coke" Coleda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
