From: yitzle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> IIRC, the stack pointer is part of the operating system, not the C language.
> When a subroutine is called, the parameters are pushed to the stack,
> and the return value is stored in a specific register.
Well ... depends. If you want to call a function provided
thanks everyone a lot, you cleared up any doubt, *very* insightful
have a wonderful happy new year!
On Jan 1, 2008 8:36 PM, Chas. Owens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 1, 2008 2:32 PM, Chas. Owens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> snip
> > You can deal with this by using the anonymous arrayref g
On Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 02:43:44PM -0800, gst wrote:
> hi,
>
> iirc, in C if I store somwhere a pointer to a "stack" value (e.g.:
> call a function with an auto variable, return its pointer) i know i'm
> going to mess things, since that piece of data will be most probably
> overwritten by subsequ
From: gst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> iirc, in C if I store somwhere a pointer to a "stack" value (e.g.:
> call a function with an auto variable, return its pointer) i know i'm
> going to mess things, since that piece of data will be most probably
> overwritten by subsequent calls.
>
> if I do the same
On Jan 1, 2008 2:32 PM, Chas. Owens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
snip
> You can deal with this by using the anonymous arrayref generator:
snip
Oh, the proper term is "anonymous array composer" (at least according
to the 3rd Camel). I knew "anonymous arrayref generator" sounded
wrong.
--
To unsubs
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:43:44 -0800, gst wrote:
> iirc, in C if I store somwhere a pointer to a "stack" value (e.g.:
> call a function with an auto variable, return its pointer) i know i'm
> going to mess things, since that piece of data will be most probably
> overwritten by subsequent calls.
>
>
On Jan 1, 2008 2:12 PM, Chas. Owens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
snip
> > if I do the same in Perl (with a hard ref), do I have any guarantee
> > that the same behavior (implicit aliasing) does - or does not (every
> > new scalar is guaranteed to not alias the old non existant value) -
> > apply?
sni
On Dec 31, 2007 5:43 PM, gst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> hi,
>
> iirc, in C if I store somwhere a pointer to a "stack" value (e.g.:
> call a function with an auto variable, return its pointer) i know i'm
> going to mess things, since that piece of data will be most probably
> overwritten by subseq
IIRC, the stack pointer is part of the operating system, not the C language.
When a subroutine is called, the parameters are pushed to the stack,
and the return value is stored in a specific register.
When a routine creates a variable, the system's memory allocator finds
a new piece of unused memor
On Dec 31, 2007 2:43 PM, gst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> iirc, in C if I store somwhere a pointer to a "stack" value (e.g.:
> call a function with an auto variable, return its pointer) i know i'm
> going to mess things, since that piece of data will be most probably
> overwritten by subsequent ca
hi,
iirc, in C if I store somwhere a pointer to a "stack" value (e.g.:
call a function with an auto variable, return its pointer) i know i'm
going to mess things, since that piece of data will be most probably
overwritten by subsequent calls.
if I do the same in Perl (with a hard ref), do I have
11 matches
Mail list logo
