Re: [perl #38348] [PATCH] Accept return values via a Continuation

2006-02-03 Thread Leopold Toetsch
On Feb 3, 2006, at 15:49, Nicholas Clark wrote: On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 02:01:42PM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote: Limiting the callframe range, where the continuation can go. Currently creating a continuation is rather expensive, as all RetContinuations up the call chain are converted into f

Re: [perl #38348] [PATCH] Accept return values via a Continuation

2006-02-03 Thread Nicholas Clark
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 02:01:42PM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote: > Bob Rogers wrote: > > From: "Leopold Toetsch via RT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Yep. At least as long we don't have better support for creating > > limited continuations that are able to return some results. > > > >I'm afraid

Re: [perl #38348] [PATCH] Accept return values via a Continuation

2006-02-03 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Bob Rogers wrote: Worse, the closed-over frame is leaked entirely. (Is this what the "obviously leaks memory" comment in src/register.c is talking about, or are there other cases of leakage?) But I think I have a handle on what's causing this, and hope to propose a fix shortly. Yep re com

Re: [perl #38348] [PATCH] Accept return values via a Continuation

2006-02-03 Thread Bob Rogers
From: Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 14:01:42 +0100 Bob Rogers wrote: >From: "Leopold Toetsch via RT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Yep. At least as long we don't have better support for creating >limited continuations that are able to return some

Re: [perl #38348] [PATCH] Accept return values via a Continuation

2006-01-31 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Bob Rogers wrote: From: "Leopold Toetsch via RT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Yep. At least as long we don't have better support for creating limited continuations that are able to return some results. I'm afraid I don't follow. What would you consider better? Limiting the callframe range,

Re: [perl #38348] [PATCH] Accept return values via a Continuation

2006-01-30 Thread Bob Rogers
From: "Leopold Toetsch via RT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 05:48:42 -0800 Bob Rogers (via RT) wrote: >It seems that Continuation needs the same set_address magic as > Exception_Handler in order to return values. Yep. At least as long we don't have better sup

Re: [perl #38348] [PATCH] Accept return values via a Continuation

2006-01-30 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Bob Rogers (via RT) wrote: It seems that Continuation needs the same set_address magic as Exception_Handler in order to return values. Yep. At least as long we don't have better support for creating limited continuations that are able to return some results. There is of course the 'stand

[perl #38348] [PATCH] Accept return values via a Continuation

2006-01-29 Thread via RT
# New Ticket Created by Bob Rogers # Please include the string: [perl #38348] # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue. # https://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=38348 > It seems that Continuation needs the same set_address magic as Exception_Handler in or