From: "Patrick R. Michaud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 22:06:22 -0600
. . .
PGE does not expect that a sub will restore the state of the user
stack, but it does expect that *coroutines* get their own copy of
the user stack, and that calling/returning from a corout
On Feb 24, 2006, at 0:23, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
[...]
Well, there are two issues involved with the user stack:
* do we really need it / want it / keep it [1]
* if so, how are the semantics across sub calls or for coros
I've just committed an update (r11722) that eliminates PGE's
use of sa
On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 10:37:00AM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
>
> On Feb 23, 2006, at 5:06, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> >PGE does not expect that a sub will restore the state of the user
> >stack, but it does expect that *coroutines* get their own copy of
> >the user stack, and that calling/ret
On Feb 23, 2006, at 5:06, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
PGE does not expect that a sub will restore the state of the user
stack, but it does expect that *coroutines* get their own copy of
the user stack, and that calling/returning from a coroutine will
not affect the current user stack. This expe
On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 10:06:22PM -0600, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> Based on the trace I just looked at, it appears that a save opcode
> executed inside a coroutine -- the coroutine generated to handle
> the subrule -- is indeed affecting the results of a
> restore in the caller and causing an
On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 09:52:34PM -0500, Bob Rogers wrote:
Content-Description: message body text
>The good news is that the attached patch makes this work. The bad
> news is that it also breaks PGE, albeit in a small way. Six of the
> "" tests (mostly, but not exclusively, involving "") in
On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 09:52:34PM -0500, Bob Rogers wrote:
Content-Description: message body text
>The good news is that the attached patch makes this work. The bad
> news is that it also breaks PGE, albeit in a small way. Six of the
> "" tests (mostly, but not exclusively, involving "") in
On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 09:52:34PM -0500, Bob Rogers wrote:
Content-Description: message body text
>The good news is that the attached patch makes this work. The bad
> news is that it also breaks PGE, albeit in a small way. Six of the
> "" tests (mostly, but not exclusively, involving "") in
The good news is that the attached patch makes this work. The bad
news is that it also breaks PGE, albeit in a small way. Six of the
"" tests (mostly, but not exclusively, involving "") in
t/compilers/pge/p6rules/builtins.t seem to go into an infinite loop. I
have been unable to figure this o
