On Sunday 21 October 2007 19:13:35 Will Coleda wrote:
> RT# 42969 and DEPRECATED.pod agree that the subclass vtable entry is
> deprecated.
>
> However, src/ops/object.ops seems to think this means that the
> subclass opcode is deprecated.
>
> Can I just get a sanity check before I remove the comme
# New Ticket Created by Will Coleda
# Please include the string: [perl #46607]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=46607 >
--
Will "Coke" Coleda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
lisp_new.patch
Description: Binary data
On Sat Sep 01 02:55:28 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 17:47:56 -0700, James Keenan (via RT)
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > In order to continue as a Parrot developer, do I really need to
> > perform yet another upgrade of Module::Build or Pod::Simple
> (distros
>
On Thu Oct 18 18:00:04 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Looks like code starting at line 298 is being interpreted as a C++-
> style comment.
>
>
>
> [li11-226:parrot] 553 $ prove -v t/codingstd/cppcomments.t t
> t/codingstd/cppcomments1..1
>
> # Failed test (t/codingstd/cppcomments.t a
On Wed Aug 22 09:19:49 2007, pmichaud wrote:
> For the 0.4.15 release a note was added to README regarding the
> large number of compiler warnings in the release:
>
> + As of the 0.4.15 release you may see a large number of compiler
> + warnings throughout the make process -- this is normal. The
RT# 42969 and DEPRECATED.pod agree that the subclass vtable entry is
deprecated.
However, src/ops/object.ops seems to think this means that the
subclass opcode is deprecated.
Can I just get a sanity check before I remove the comment from the
ops file?
--
Will "Coke" Coleda
[EMAIL PROTEC
I'm trying to convert partcl to no longer use the old object model.
I have code like this:
$P0 = getclass 'ParrotIO'
$S0 = $P0.'slurp'($S1)
Found the note saying getclass -> get_class...
Now I get "Method 'slurp' not found"
but if I change getclass to 'new', then it ... well, it gets further.
Second one of these I've seen recently, though the other was on a
branch...
Please avoid updating the MANIFEST to just change the date. (Didn't
you already fix the manifest generator to avoid doing this, even?)
On Oct 21, 2007, at 8:20 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: jkeenan
Date: Su
# New Ticket Created by chromatic
# Please include the string: [perl #46601]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=46601 >
Run t/pmc/io.t with the GC debugging runcore:
$ TEST_PROG_ARGS='--runcore=gcdebug'
On Sunday 21 October 2007 10:54:16 Bram Geron wrote:
> chromatic wrote:
> > Seems reasonable to me. How did you check for leaks, by the way?
> I ran the test file for two minutes (it's an infinite loop), and top
> showed no change in memory use. I assumed that was accurate enough :)
Sounds rig
On Thu Mar 15 19:12:48 2007, ptc wrote:
> splint spews many many errors by default. Take a look at the
> Makefile that perl5 has for the start of some rules that Andy worked
> on for the perl5 code.
Andy Lester has done a very large amount of work on this, and a very
good set of rules for splint
In what seems to have become an autumn tradition in the Parrot
community, I am about to make my third annual attempt to implement
Parrot support for what Common Lisp calls "special variable binding."
Most of the rest of the world calls it "dynamic binding" or "dynamic
scoping" [1]; after last fa
File holding framework for writing tests for this configuration step was
committed to trunk Oct 21 2007 in r22362. Tests do not yet provide high
coverage due to obstacles in testing runstep(). You are encouraged to
poke around and add tests.
chromatic wrote:
> On Sunday 21 October 2007 07:57:58 Bram Geron wrote:
>
>> Attached patch fixes the segfault for me. (And no memory leak too.) The
>> problem was that mark_context didn't mark ctx->caller_ctx, which is used
>> in get_params. Usually the caller context is accessible through
>> cur
On Sunday 21 October 2007 07:57:58 Bram Geron wrote:
> Attached patch fixes the segfault for me. (And no memory leak too.) The
> problem was that mark_context didn't mark ctx->caller_ctx, which is used
> in get_params. Usually the caller context is accessible through
> current_cont->to_ctx, but in
File holding framework for writing tests for this configuration step was
committed to trunk Oct 21 2007 in r22362. Tests do not yet provide high
coverage due to obstacles in testing runstep(). You are encouraged to
poke around and add tests.
File holding framework for writing tests for this configuration step was
committed to trunk Oct 21 2007 in r22362. Tests do not yet provide high
coverage due to obstacles in testing runstep(). You are encouraged to
poke around and add tests.
File holding framework for writing tests for this configuration step was
committed to trunk Oct 21 2007 in r22362. Tests do not yet provide high
coverage due to obstacles in testing runstep(). You are encouraged to
poke around and add tests.
File holding framework for writing tests for this configuration step was
committed to trunk Oct 21 2007 in r22362. Tests do not yet provide high
coverage due to obstacles in testing runstep(). You are encouraged to
poke around and add tests.
File holding framework for writing tests for this configuration step was
committed to trunk Oct 21 2007 in r22362. Tests do not yet provide high
coverage due to obstacles in testing runstep(). You are encouraged to
poke around and add tests.
File holding framework for writing tests for this configuration step was
committed to trunk Oct 21 2007 in r22362. Tests do not yet provide high
coverage due to obstacles in testing runstep(). You are encouraged to
poke around and add tests.
File holding framework for writing tests for this configuration step was
committed to trunk Oct 21 2007 in r22362. Tests do not yet provide high
coverage due to obstacles in testing runstep(). You are encouraged to
poke around and add tests.
# New Ticket Created by Bram Geron
# Please include the string: [perl #46597]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=46597 >
In Parrot_init_arg_indexes_and_sig_pmc, the `sig_pmc' and `indexes'
arguments are declared
File holding framework for writing tests for this configuration step was
committed to trunk Oct 21 2007 in r22362. Tests do not yet provide high
coverage due to obstacles in testing runstep(). You are encouraged to
poke around and add tests.
File holding framework for writing tests for this configuration step was
committed to trunk Oct 21 2007 in r22362. Tests do not yet provide high
coverage due to obstacles in testing runstep(). You are encouraged to
poke around and add tests.
File holding framework for writing tests for this configuration step was
committed to trunk Oct 21 2007 in r22362. Tests do not yet provide high
coverage due to obstacles in testing runstep(). You are encouraged to
poke around and add tests.
File holding framework for writing tests for this configuration step was
committed to trunk Oct 21 2007 in r22362. Tests do not yet provide high
coverage due to obstacles in testing runstep(). You are encouraged to
poke around and add tests.
File holding framework for writing tests for this configuration step was
committed to trunk Oct 21 2007 in r22362. Tests do not yet provide high
coverage due to obstacles in testing runstep(). You are encouraged to
poke around and add tests.
File holding framework for writing tests for this configuration step was
committed to trunk Oct 21 2007 in r22362. Tests do not yet provide high
coverage due to obstacles in testing runstep(). You are encouraged to
poke around and add tests.
File holding framework for writing tests for this configuration step was
committed to trunk Oct 21 2007 in r22362. Tests do not yet provide high
coverage due to obstacles in testing runstep(). You are encouraged to
poke around and add tests.
File holding framework for writing tests for this configuration step was
committed to trunk Oct 21 2007 in r22362. Tests do not yet provide high
coverage due to obstacles in testing runstep(). You are encouraged to
poke around and add tests.
File holding framework for writing tests for this configuration step was
committed to trunk Oct 21 2007 in r22362. Tests do not yet provide high
coverage due to obstacles in testing runstep(). You are encouraged to
poke around and add tests.
File holding framework for writing tests for this configuration step was
committed to trunk Oct 21 2007 in r22362. Tests do not yet provide high
coverage due to obstacles in testing runstep(). You are encouraged to
poke around and add tests.
File holding framework for writing tests for this configuration step was
committed to trunk Oct 21 2007 in r22362. Tests do not yet provide high
coverage due to obstacles in testing runstep(). You are encouraged to
poke around and add tests.
File holding framework for writing tests for this configuration step was
committed to trunk Oct 21 2007 in r22362. Tests do not yet provide high
coverage due to obstacles in testing runstep(). You are encouraged to
poke around and add tests.
File holding framework for writing tests for this configuration step was
committed to trunk Oct 21 2007 in r22362. Tests do not yet provide high
coverage due to obstacles in testing runstep(). You are encouraged to
poke around and add tests.
File holding framework for writing tests for this configuration step was
committed to trunk Oct 21 2007 in r22362. Tests do not yet provide high
coverage due to obstacles in testing runstep(). You are encouraged to
poke around and add tests.
File holding framework for writing tests for this configuration step was
committed to trunk Oct 21 2007 in r22362. Tests do not yet provide high
coverage due to obstacles in testing runstep(). You are encouraged to
poke around and add tests.
File holding framework for writing tests for this configuration step was
committed to trunk Oct 21 2007 in r22362. Tests do not yet provide high
coverage due to obstacles in testing runstep(). You are encouraged to
poke around and add tests.
File holding framework for writing tests for this configuration step was
committed to trunk Oct 21 2007 in r22362. Tests do not yet provide high
coverage due to obstacles in testing runstep(). You are encouraged to
poke around and add tests.
File holding framework for writing tests for this configuration step was
committed to trunk Oct 21 2007 in r22362. Tests do not yet provide high
coverage due to obstacles in testing runstep(). You are encouraged to
poke around and add tests.
File holding framework for writing tests for this configuration step was
committed to trunk Oct 21 2007 in r22362. Tests do not yet provide high
coverage due to obstacles in testing runstep(). You are encouraged to
poke around and add tests.
File holding framework for writing tests for this configuration step was
committed to trunk Oct 21 2007 in r22362. Tests do not yet provide high
coverage due to obstacles in testing runstep(). You are encouraged to
poke around and add tests.
File holding framework for writing tests for this configuration step was
committed to trunk Oct 21 2007 in r22362. Tests do not yet provide high
coverage due to obstacles in testing runstep(). You are encouraged to
poke around and add tests.
File holding framework for writing tests for this configuration step was
committed to trunk Oct 21 2007 in r22362. Tests do not yet provide high
coverage due to obstacles in testing runstep(). You are encouraged to
poke around and add tests.
File holding framework for writing tests for this configuration step was
committed to trunk Oct 21 2007 in r22362. Tests do not yet provide high
coverage due to obstacles in testing runstep(). You are encouraged to
poke around and add tests.
File holding framework for writing tests for this configuration step was
committed to trunk Oct 21 2007 in r22362. Tests do not yet provide high
coverage due to obstacles in testing runstep(). You are encouraged to
poke around and add tests.
File holding framework for writing tests for this configuration step was
committed to trunk Oct 21 2007 in r22362. Tests do not yet provide high
coverage due to obstacles in testing runstep(). You are encouraged to
poke around and add tests.
File holding framework for writing tests for this configuration step was
committed to trunk Oct 21 2007 in r22362. Tests do not yet provide high
coverage due to obstacles in testing runstep(). You are encouraged to
poke around and add tests.
File holding framework for writing tests for this configuration step was
committed to trunk Oct 21 2007 in r22362. Tests do not yet provide high
coverage due to obstacles in testing runstep(). You are encouraged to
poke around and add tests.
File holding framework for writing tests for this configuration step was
committed to trunk Oct 21 2007 in r22362. Tests do not yet provide high
coverage due to obstacles in testing runstep(). You are encouraged to
poke around and add tests.
File holding framework for writing tests for this configuration step was
committed to trunk Oct 21 2007 in r22362. Tests do not yet provide high
coverage due to obstacles in testing runstep(). You are encouraged to
poke around and add tests.
File holding framework for writing tests for this configuration step was
committed to trunk Oct 21 2007 in r22362. Tests do not yet provide high
coverage due to obstacles in testing runstep(). You are encouraged to
poke around and add tests.
On Mon Mar 19 09:54:26 2007, ptc wrote:
> On Sat Mar 17 14:19:51 2007, ptc wrote:
> > The lcov tool from the Linux Test Project
> > (http://ltp.sourceforge.net/coverage/lcov.readme.php) can be used to
> > produce html output of code coverage information (I believe this
looks
> > similar to Devel::
File holding framework for writing tests for this configuration step was
committed to trunk Oct 21 2007 in r22362. Tests do not yet provide high
coverage due to obstacles in testing runstep(). You are encouraged to
poke around and add tests.
File holding framework for writing tests for this configuration step was
committed to trunk Oct 21 2007 in r22362. Tests do not yet provide high
coverage due to obstacles in testing runstep(). You are encouraged to
poke around and add tests.
File holding framework for writing tests for this configuration step was
committed to trunk Oct 21 2007 in r22362. Tests do not yet provide high
coverage due to obstacles in testing runstep(). You are encouraged to
poke around and add tests.
File holding framework for writing tests for this configuration step was
committed to trunk Oct 21 2007 in r22362. Tests do not yet provide high
coverage due to obstacles in testing runstep(). You are encouraged to
poke around and add tests.
File holding framework for writing tests for this configuration step was
committed to trunk Oct 21 2007 in r22362. Tests do not yet provide high
coverage due to obstacles in testing runstep(). You are encouraged to
poke around and add tests.
File holding framework for writing tests for this configuration step was
committed to trunk Oct 21 2007 in r22362. Tests do not yet provide high
coverage due to obstacles in testing runstep(). You are encouraged to
poke around and add tests.
File holding framework for writing tests for this configuration step was
committed to trunk Oct 21 2007 in r22362. Tests do not yet provide high
coverage due to obstacles in testing runstep(). You are encouraged to
poke around and add tests.
File holding framework for writing tests for this configuration step was
committed to trunk Oct 21 2007 in r22362. Tests do not yet provide high
coverage due to obstacles in testing runstep(). You are encouraged to
poke around and add tests.
Patch applied in r22363. Thanks!
# New Ticket Created by Bram Geron
# Please include the string: [perl #46595]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=46595 >
A few spelling fixes.
src/inter_call.c |2 +-
src/pmc/continuation.pmc |
# New Ticket Created by Bram Geron
# Please include the string: [perl #46593]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=46593 >
I think attached patch clarifies parameter passing a little.
Non-comment changes:
* enum
Will Coleda wrote:
>
> On Sep 10, 2007, at 12:47 AM, chromatic wrote:
>
>> On Sunday 09 September 2007 21:40:56 Will Coleda via RT wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Program received signal EXC_BAD_ACCESS, Could not access memory.
>>> Reason: KERN_INVALID_ADDRESS at address: 0xdeadbef3
>>> 0x00010b42 in clone_key
On 21/10/2007, Joshua Isom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Oct 20, 2007, at 2:33 PM, Paul Cochrane via RT wrote:
>
> > The ctags program is now detected at configuration time (this program
> > sometimes has different names on different systems) and now 'make tags'
> > should work out of the box f
67 matches
Mail list logo
