At 07:10 AM 3/28/2002 -0500, Clinton A. Pierce wrote:
>Try out bug #465 for size, as it's my current holdup (for some reason it
didn't >forward to p6i). In this case a restore instruction sends the
parrot runtime into a >loop from which it never (28 hours later)
recovers. It's probably Yet A
>Regardless, this patch does make 'make test' happy again, and should be
>safe to apply apply, as long as we don't forget about the afore-mentioned
>caveat, which will probably come back to bite us in the future if we don't
>take care of it. I wonder how many more GC bugs are lurking, waiting for
8 Mar 2002 02:52:15 -0500
> From: Josh Wilmes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: "deep" tests for stacks.t
>
>
> Mike pointed out that I was missing "end" opcodes in there, so I added
> them and went ahead and committed this code to
Mike pointed out that I was missing "end" opcodes in there, so I added
them and went ahead and committed this code to CVS. Currently test #7 is
failing, but I think it's a legitimate bug- if not, I apologize for
breaking the tinderbox ;)
--Josh
At 1:15 on 03/28/2002 EST, Josh Wilmes <[EMAIL
I added some tests which push larger numbers of stack frames- this
improves our coverage in register.c. However, one of the tests is failing
for me. Is this something I did wrong, or did I find a bug?
I'm getting weird output for the pushp and popp (deep) test.
--Josh
Here's the patch:
In
