Re: [PATCH] [perl #36269] Alignment problems with doubles on SPARC.

2005-06-15 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Andy Dougherty wrote: On Mon, 13 Jun 2005, Andy Dougherty wrote: On Mon, 13 Jun 2005, Leopold Toetsch via RT wrote: Chip Salzenberg wrote: On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 02:57:09PM -0400, Andy Dougherty wrote: Yes. The compiler does the right thing. It sensibly reports The following pat

[PATCH] [perl #36269] Alignment problems with doubles on SPARC.

2005-06-14 Thread Andy Dougherty
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005, Andy Dougherty wrote: > On Mon, 13 Jun 2005, Leopold Toetsch via RT wrote: > > > Chip Salzenberg wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 02:57:09PM -0400, Andy Dougherty wrote: > > > > >>Yes. The compiler does the right thing. It sensibly reports > > >>that sizeof(PMC) = 24

Re: [perl #36269] Alignment problems with doubles on SPARC.

2005-06-13 Thread Andy Dougherty
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005, Leopold Toetsch via RT wrote: > Chip Salzenberg wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 02:57:09PM -0400, Andy Dougherty wrote: > > >>Yes. The compiler does the right thing. It sensibly reports > >>that sizeof(PMC) = 24 for SPARC. > > > > Then I remain puzzled how Parrot could

Re: [perl #36269] Alignment problems with doubles on SPARC.

2005-06-13 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Chip Salzenberg wrote: On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 02:57:09PM -0400, Andy Dougherty wrote: Yes. The compiler does the right thing. It sensibly reports that sizeof(PMC) = 24 for SPARC. Then I remain puzzled how Parrot could ever misalign a double. Yes. So I am. Could somone please run this P

Re: [perl #36269] Alignment problems with doubles on SPARC.

2005-06-13 Thread Chip Salzenberg
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 02:57:09PM -0400, Andy Dougherty wrote: > On Mon, 13 Jun 2005, Chip Salzenberg via RT wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 08:38:30PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote: > > > Chip Salzenberg wrote: > > > >On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 07:29:53PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote: > > > >>T

Re: [perl #36269] Alignment problems with doubles on SPARC.

2005-06-13 Thread Andy Dougherty
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005, Chip Salzenberg via RT wrote: > On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 08:38:30PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote: > > Chip Salzenberg wrote: > > >On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 07:29:53PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote: > > >>The PMC allocation area is a big bunch of memory, where PMC-sized > > >>piece

Re: [perl #36269] Alignment problems with doubles on SPARC.

2005-06-13 Thread Chip Salzenberg
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 08:38:30PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote: > Chip Salzenberg wrote: > >On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 07:29:53PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote: > >>The PMC allocation area is a big bunch of memory, where PMC-sized > >>pieces are carved out by the memory allocation system. There is no

Re: [perl #36269] Alignment problems with doubles on SPARC.

2005-06-13 Thread Andy Dougherty
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005, Leopold Toetsch via RT wrote: > Chip Salzenberg wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 07:12:48PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote: > > > >>Andy Dougherty (via RT) wrote: > >> > >>>... On SPARC, doubles should be aligned on 8-bit boundaries. > >>>The speculation is that the _num_val

Re: [perl #36269] Alignment problems with doubles on SPARC.

2005-06-13 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Chip Salzenberg wrote: On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 07:29:53PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote: The PMC allocation area is a big bunch of memory, where PMC-sized pieces are carved out by the memory allocation system. There is no union or compiler bug involved. But "PMC-sized" is defined in terms of

Re: [perl #36269] Alignment problems with doubles on SPARC.

2005-06-13 Thread Chip Salzenberg
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 07:29:53PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote: > The PMC allocation area is a big bunch of memory, where PMC-sized > pieces are carved out by the memory allocation system. There is no > union or compiler bug involved. But "PMC-sized" is defined in terms of the C sizeof operator,

Re: [perl #36269] Alignment problems with doubles on SPARC.

2005-06-13 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Chip Salzenberg wrote: On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 07:12:48PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote: Andy Dougherty (via RT) wrote: ... On SPARC, doubles should be aligned on 8-bit boundaries. The speculation is that the _num_val part of the UnionVal in the PMC ends up unaligned. However, I couldn't fol

Re: [perl #36269] Alignment problems with doubles on SPARC.

2005-06-13 Thread Chip Salzenberg
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 07:12:48PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote: > Andy Dougherty (via RT) wrote: > >... On SPARC, doubles should be aligned on 8-bit boundaries. > >The speculation is that the _num_val part of the UnionVal in the PMC > >ends up unaligned. However, I couldn't follow where that hap

Re: [perl #36269] Alignment problems with doubles on SPARC.

2005-06-13 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Andy Dougherty (via RT) wrote: ... On SPARC, doubles should be aligned on 8-bit boundaries. The speculation is that the _num_val part of the UnionVal in the PMC ends up unaligned. However, I couldn't follow where that happened, so I can't suggest a patch. It happends directly in the PMC mem

[perl #36269] Alignment problems with doubles on SPARC.

2005-06-13 Thread via RT
# New Ticket Created by Andy Dougherty # Please include the string: [perl #36269] # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue. # https://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=36269 > As discussed in http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl6.internals/29984 a parr