2009/1/4 Neil Jerram :
>
> Sorry, no. I have the code change ready to go now; do you by any
> chance have a convenient test for this?
Well I worked out a test, and have now committed that + the fix to
branch_release-1-8 and master.
Neil
2009/1/4 Andy Wingo :
> Hi,
>
> Sorry for the spam, but I'm going through some backlog that I didn't
> have the resources to deal with. Has this issue been addressed?
>
> Andy
>
> On Sun 14 Sep 2008 14:06, "Neil Jerram" writes:
>
>> 2008/9/12 Andy Wingo :
>>> On Thu 11 Sep 2008 23:06, "Neil Jerram
Hi,
Sorry for the spam, but I'm going through some backlog that I didn't
have the resources to deal with. Has this issue been addressed?
Andy
On Sun 14 Sep 2008 14:06, "Neil Jerram" writes:
> 2008/9/12 Andy Wingo :
>> On Thu 11 Sep 2008 23:06, "Neil Jerram" writes:
>>
>>> Are you sure? Surel
2008/9/16 Mikael Djurfeldt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 2008/9/11 Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Also, is Mikael right with his error #1? I'm thinking not, because I
>> believe that instances are structs too, so surely it's OK to call
>> SCM_STRUCT_DATA (x)[...] on them?
>
> It is good that you are
2008/9/11 Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Also, is Mikael right with his error #1? I'm thinking not, because I
> believe that instances are structs too, so surely it's OK to call
> SCM_STRUCT_DATA (x)[...] on them?
It is good that you are sceptical about what I say because it was a
long time a
2008/9/14 Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> i = scm_to_unsigned_integer (index, 0, SCM_SLOT (SCM_CLASS_OF (obj),
> scm_si_nfields) - 1);
There should be a SCM_I_INUM in there too.
Neil
2008/9/12 Andy Wingo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu 11 Sep 2008 23:06, "Neil Jerram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Are you sure? Surely that would require a call somewhere to
>> scm_alloc_struct() with n_extra = 0, and I can't see any of those.
>
> I'm sure -- goops.c:1541 in master. Doesn't go
On Thu 11 Sep 2008 23:06, "Neil Jerram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Classes that are not metaclasses allocate their instances using "light
>> structs". So the object layout goes like this:
>>
>> the vtable word the data word
>>+-
2008/8/18 Andy Wingo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi Han-Wen,
>
> On Fri 15 Aug 2008 22:15, Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Running the test suite through valgrind, I get some fishy errors.
>>
>> Can someone shed a light on this? The culprit seems to be
>>
>> #define SCM_NUMBER_OF_SLOT
Hello,
Andy Wingo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There could be two fixes. One would be to assume that the Scheme code
> that calls %fast-slot-ref et al is well-formed, and thus we need no
> bounds checking. It's all in goops.scm, so this would be a decent
> assumption. The other would be to use a
Hi Han-Wen,
On Fri 15 Aug 2008 22:15, Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Running the test suite through valgrind, I get some fishy errors.
>
> Can someone shed a light on this? The culprit seems to be
>
> #define SCM_NUMBER_OF_SLOTS(x) \
> ((SCM_STRUCT_DATA (x)[scm_struct_i_n_words
Mikael Djurfeldt escreveu:
> Unfortunately, I don't have time to fix this. I suggest that some
> Guile developer removes %fast-slot-ref/set! and supplies some other
> (more clean) way of supporting the code in active-slot.scm. Also,
> make sure to check that these primitives are not used anywher
2008/8/16 Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Running the test suite through valgrind, I get some fishy errors.
>
> Can someone shed a light on this? The culprit seems to be
>
> #define SCM_NUMBER_OF_SLOTS(x) \
> ((SCM_STRUCT_DATA (x)[scm_struct_i_n_words]) - scm_struct_n_extra_words)
>
> whe
Ludovic Courtès escreveu:
> Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Running the test suite through valgrind, I get some fishy errors.
>
> So was that fixed by this commit?
>
> commit 51ef99f7fa9fb766fbb48619fc5863ab9914591d
> Author: Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date:
Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Running the test suite through valgrind, I get some fishy errors.
So was that fixed by this commit?
commit 51ef99f7fa9fb766fbb48619fc5863ab9914591d
Author: Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat Aug 16 02:18:51 2008 -0300
Fix
Running the test suite through valgrind, I get some fishy errors.
Can someone shed a light on this? The culprit seems to be
#define SCM_NUMBER_OF_SLOTS(x) \
((SCM_STRUCT_DATA (x)[scm_struct_i_n_words]) - scm_struct_n_extra_words)
where scm_struct_i_n_words is -2
==18569== Invalid read of si
16 matches
Mail list logo
