On Sun Jun 01 01:33:10 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 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 >
I agree. Good enough to close the ticket, thanks.
