On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 9:24 PM, Andy Dougherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Will Coleda via RT wrote:
>
> > On Fri Apr 04 22:28:31 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > On Thursday 03 April 2008 11:22:16 Andy Dougherty wrote:
> > >
>
> > > > parrot-andy/compilers/imcc/optimizer.c ---
> > > > parrot-svn/compilers/imcc/optimizer.c 2008-03-31 15:14:39.000000000
> > -0400
> > > > +++ parrot-andy/compilers/imcc/optimizer.c 2008-04-03
> 13:14:52.000000000
> > > > -0400 @@ -976,8 +976,10 @@
> > > > * from the result
> > > > */
> > > > branched = eval_ins(interp, op, found, r);
> > > > - if (branched == -1)
> > > > + if (branched == -1) {
> > > > + *ok = 0; /* XXX Is this return value sensible? */
> > > > return NULL;
> > > > + }
> > >
> > > Sadly, this part doesn't work because of the other call to this
> > function.
> > > I've applied the rest of the patch with some tweaks as r26763.
> > >
>
>
> > Andy, does this test pass for you now?
>
> Yes, it should, since the initialization is now done in the calling
> function. I'd be happier if the following comment-only patch were
> applied, so that next time someone tries to address the deeper problem
> there's at least a flag in the code about one of the question spots.
>
> --- parrot-svn/compilers/imcc/optimizer.c Mon Apr 7 09:26:28 2008
> +++ parrot-andy/compilers/imcc/optimizer.c Wed Apr 9 17:47:43 2008
> @@ -980,8 +980,10 @@
>
> * from the result
> */
> branched = eval_ins(interp, op, found, r);
> - if (branched == -1)
> - return NULL;
> + if (branched == -1) {
> + /* XXX Deliberately not setting *ok. See [perl #43048] */
> + return NULL;
> + }
> /*
> * for math ops result is in I0/N0
> * if it was a branch with constant args, the result is
>
> --
> Andy Dougherty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
Applied something very similar in r26891.
Thanks again for the report, closing the ticket.
--
Will "Coke" Coleda
