Benjamin Goldberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> to:
>mark roots from interpreter
>follow marked but previously unfollowed pmcs
>mark pmcs on system stack
>follow marked but previously unfollowed pmcs
> But considering the potential benefit for debugging, it might be worth
> it.
Th
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
>
> Andy Dougherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 3 Jul 2003, Juergen Boemmels wrote:
>
> >> more errors like this: t/op/interp_1.pasm and t/op/gc_1.t are the ones
> >> I know of. We will have much fun with bugs like this.
>
> > This might be another one -- t/op/
Andy Dougherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Jul 2003, Juergen Boemmels wrote:
>> more errors like this: t/op/interp_1.pasm and t/op/gc_1.t are the ones
>> I know of. We will have much fun with bugs like this.
> This might be another one -- t/op/gc_2.pasm is simply
[ ... ]
> I'm lost.
On Thu, 3 Jul 2003, Juergen Boemmels wrote:
> more errors like this: t/op/interp_1.pasm and t/op/gc_1.t are the ones
> I know of. We will have much fun with bugs like this.
This might be another one -- t/op/gc_2.pasm is simply
interpinfo I1, 2 # How many DOD runs have we done already?
Juergen Boemmels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> ... we still have a *big* problem here. During marking the system area,
>> we might always detect stale objects and mark them live. This isn't a
>> problem for plain objects, but objects that need timely d
Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Juergen Boemmels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But in t/pmc/io_2.pasm is a more nasty problem. The sweep 0 call does
> > (sometimes) not trigger the destruction of the PMC containing the
> > IO-Object, even though it is not connected to the root-set.
Juergen Boemmels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And here is the patch.
Thanks, applied.
leo
Juergen Boemmels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But in t/pmc/io_2.pasm is a more nasty problem. The sweep 0 call does
> (sometimes) not trigger the destruction of the PMC containing the
> IO-Object, even though it is not connected to the root-set.
> In trace_system_areas the variable env is not init
Index: cpu_dep.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/public/parrot/cpu_dep.c,v
retrieving revision 1.7
diff -u -r1.7 cpu_dep.c
--- cpu_dep.c 1 Jun 2003 00:17:43 - 1.7
+++ cpu_dep.c 2 Jul 2003 21:50:53 -
@@ -57,6 +57,9 @@
# ifdef HAS_HEADER_SE
Simon Glover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 1 Jul 2003, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> > This dies on 9 tests on OS X, and I think from the complaints that
> > valgrind will also be very unhappy, but I'm putting it in so it can
> > be thumped by other folks as well as me.
>
> I think I might ha
Juergen Boemmels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I still missed one of the PIO_fprintf -> PIO_eprintf.
Applied, thanks,
leo
Index: embed.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/public/parrot/embed.c,v
retrieving revision 1.70
diff -u -r1.70 embed.c
--- embed.c 1 Jul 2003 18:22:01 - 1.70
+++ embed.c 2 Jul 2003 09:59:39 -
@@ -319,8 +319,8 @@
/* No JIT here--make su
JüRgen" "BöMmels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The standard filedescriptors stdin, stdout and stderr are protected
> from closing by the PMC_destroy function by marking them as
> PIO_F_SHARED. Don't know if this is a right solution.
The 3 standard IO PMCs should probably live inside interpreter->p
On Tue, 1 Jul 2003, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> This dies on 9 tests on OS X, and I think from the complaints that
> valgrind will also be very unhappy, but I'm putting it in so it can
> be thumped by other folks as well as me.
I think I might have figured out why valgrind's unhappy. We're
currently
At 8:06 PM +0200 7/1/03, Juergen Boemmels wrote:
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
This dies on 9 tests on OS X, and I think from the complaints that
valgrind will also be very unhappy, but I'm putting it in so it can be
thumped by other folks as well as me.
The tinderboxens are very unh
? include/parrot/platform_interface.h
Index: embed.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/public/parrot/embed.c,v
retrieving revision 1.69
diff -u -r1.69 embed.c
--- embed.c 1 Jul 2003 15:41:00 - 1.69
+++ embed.c 1 Jul 2003 17:59:34 -
@@ -220,9
At 1:41 PM + 7/1/03, "J¸rgen" "Bmmels" (via RT) wrote:
this is the first step of the IO-system away from the mem_sys_alloc/free
memory-managment system to a full-fledged PMC-based system.
In this patch only the ParrotIO structures are transformed to a
PMC. This is simply done by wrapping the P
# New Ticket Created by Jürgen Bömmels
# Please include the string: [perl #22864]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=22864 >
Hello,
this is the first step of the IO-system away from the mem_sys_alloc/free
memor
18 matches
Mail list logo
