> Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > +op pop_pad(out PMC) {
> > + $1 = new_pmc_header(interpreter);
> > + stack_pop(interpreter, &interpreter->ctx.pad_stack,
> > + &$1, STACK_ENTRY_PMC);
> > goto NEXT();
>
> Do we really need a new PMC header here? The PMC already must have one.
Duh. I even looked at the source, and it was clear that one wasn't
needed... but I wrote it anyway. It was late.
> > +rotate_entries(Interp *interpreter, Stack_Chunk_t *stack, INTVAL num_entries)
> > {
> > Stack_Entry_t temp;
> > - Intval i;
> > - Intval depth = num_entries - 1;
> > + INTVAL i;
> > + INTVAL depth = num_entries - 1;
>
> And these are typical cases, where a plain int or size_t seems more
> appropriate, as Brian did show. But of course the whole source tree is
> full of such (ab)usage of INTVALs.
Ahh, I was just doing a lexical transformation. I didn't actually
look at what they were used for. The source tree is now free of
Intval (and Floatval), at least.
Luke
