Author: allison
Date: Wed May 9 22:57:21 2007
New Revision: 18492
Modified:
trunk/docs/pdds/draft/pdd17_pmc.pod
Log:
[pdd] The new combined PMC PDD, a work in progress.
Modified: trunk/docs/pdds/draft/pdd17_pmc.pod
On Wed, 9 May 2007, Allison Randal via RT wrote:
> Andy Dougherty wrote:
> >
> > I was about to post a patch adding those functions in, but I see that
> > you're in the middle of a much more thorough review than I had attempted,
> > so my patch isn't going to apply anymore, and would probably b
Andy Dougherty wrote:
I was about to post a patch adding those functions in, but I see that
you're in the middle of a much more thorough review than I had attempted,
so my patch isn't going to apply anymore, and would probably be
misleading, to boot.
Just adding Parrot_allocate_aligned and
On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 01:06:49PM -0700, chromatic wrote:
> On Wednesday 09 May 2007 12:53:57 Nicholas Clark wrote:
>
> > On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 04:41:22PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > +
> > > +#define STRING_IS_NULL(s) ((s) == NULL)
> > > +#define STRING_IS_EMPTY(s) !(int)(s)->strlen
# New Ticket Created by Mark Glines
# Please include the string: [perl #42916]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=42916 >
c_header_guards.t determines its list of header files to check from the
command line, if
On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 04:41:22PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> +
> +#define STRING_IS_NULL(s) ((s) == NULL)
> +#define STRING_IS_EMPTY(s) !(int)(s)->strlen
I'm really not convinced that the first macro brings any benefit.
I'm not totally sure that the second does either, given that both ope
On Wednesday 09 May 2007 12:53:57 Nicholas Clark wrote:
> On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 04:41:22PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > +
> > +#define STRING_IS_NULL(s) ((s) == NULL)
> > +#define STRING_IS_EMPTY(s) !(int)(s)->strlen
> I'm really not convinced that the first macro brings any benefit.
> I
On Tue, 8 May 2007, Allison Randal via RT wrote:
> Allison Randal wrote:
> > I've started working on src/gc/res_lea.c, after
> > removing the check for the no-longer-used flag.
>
> I've checked in those two changes. On to the next step:
>
> /home/allison/projects/svn/parrot/blib/lib/libparrot.so
Allison Randal wrote:
tewk wrote:
Patch was to large to attach so: http://tewk.com/pdd15_testing.diff
Tests currently fail because they use the "new" opcode to instantiate
objects.
Fixing the 'new' opcode is the first change we need to make to get
both object models working simultaneously.
[appending to an old ticket, since if anyone wants to ever get this
working again, they'll probably have to fix up the blind guesses I made in
that old patch too.]
diff -r -u parrot-current/src/jit/sun4/jit_emit.h
parrot-andy/src/jit/sun4/jit_emit.h
--- parrot-current/src/jit/sun4/jit_emit.h
On 5/9/07, Allison Randal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
>
> Personally, I would think that the standard approach for going from
> a String PMC to a method invocation would be via the find_method
> opcode. But that's just me.
That goes back to the philosophical question o
On 5/9/07, Allison Randal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Klaas-Jan Stol wrote:
> hi,
> IIRC (currently no pc around to check, but I realized this issue when
> reading on objects pdd), calling a method in PIR can be done as follows:
>
> $P0.'someMethod'()
>
> but also:
>
> .local string meth /* or m
On Tue, 8 May 2007, James Keenan wrote:
> Andy Dougherty wrote:
> > The following oddity turned up today:
> >
> > t/postconfigure/02-revision_no_DEVELOPING
> > # Failed test (t/postconfigure/02-revision_no_DEVELOPING.t at line 51)
> > # '0'
> > # ne
> > # '0'
> > # Look
On Tue May 08 18:44:52 2007, infinoid wrote:
> Just talking to myself here :)
>
> On Tue May 08 13:28:41 2007, mark at glines.org wrote:
> > Hmm. It seems there's more than one header being missed by
> > t/codingstd/c_header_guards.t. I'm going to try to supplement the
> > $DIST->c_header_files
On Mon May 07 04:28:22 2007, codermattie wrote:
> hello,
>
> Building on commit #18446 this patch honors PARROT_PREFER_SOURCE.
>
> quick background:
>
> to get the install/working-copy to work the same extensions should
> not be used with .load_bytecode. Sometimes it will be compiled,
> sometime
# New Ticket Created by Mark Glines
# Please include the string: [perl #42908]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=42908 >
Most autogenerated headers already have a guard macro. has_headers.h is
an exception, an
Hi,
Some warnings are being emitted by both msvc and gcc, which I think were
caused by this patch.
msvc:
[10:15] < particle> src\ops\core_ops.c(14190) : warning C4047:
'initializing' : 'op_func_t' differs
[10:15] < particle> in levels of indirection from 'op_func_t * '
gcc:
src/ops/core_ops.c:
chromatic wrote:
To what extent can we play a header define game to use those functions
declared elsewhere, or do we really need them?
Oh, and to answer your other question, it depends on how much of the
implementation of the functions is the same for res_lea.c as it is for
resources.c. The
18 matches
Mail list logo
