chromatic wrote:
> In theory, this patch should apply and run cleanly. It doesn't.
>
> Thus, something somewhere pokes into memory it shouldn't.
>
> Any ideas? Alternately, any comments on this analysis?
I think adding memory checks is a brilliant idea, especially because
memory is sometimes r
On Thursday 05 July 2007 19:58:50 Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> I also get segfaults after applying this patch.
>
> However, if I change the patch such that the "size_t sentinel;"
> line goes at the end of the struct PMC instead of the beginning,
> then everything appears to compile and run.
>
> In
On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 06:30:44PM -0700, chromatic wrote:
> In theory, this patch should apply and run cleanly. It doesn't.
>
> Thus, something somewhere pokes into memory it shouldn't.
>
> Any ideas? Alternately, any comments on this analysis?
I also get segfaults after applying this patch.
In theory, this patch should apply and run cleanly. It doesn't.
Thus, something somewhere pokes into memory it shouldn't.
Any ideas? Alternately, any comments on this analysis?
-- c
=== include/parrot/pobj.h
==
--- include/parrot
