On Thursday 29 May 2008 06:21:03 Will Coleda wrote: > While this may have served a pedagogical purpose some time ago*, it's > better left in the docs as an example of what not to do (and that even > if core parrot is safe, we need to be careful of dynamically loaded > opcodes! They're not safe!), but as has been pointed out many times in > many tickets, it's just a waste of time for people trying to help us > test parrot. > > Regards. > > *I'm being generous, I'm pretty sure it was something stupid that's > mostly my fault.
I changed the implementation in r28001, so now instead of trying to maintain a testable, portable segfault, we can rely instead on a C89-compliant compiler and libc. abort() should be good enough for now. -- c
