On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 7:20 PM, Will Coleda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:39 PM, James Keenan via RT
>> 4. Parrot::OpsRenumber::renum_op_map_file() has been revised so that it
>> will behave properly before Parrot 1.0 -- when deletion of opcodes is
>> still permitted --
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:39 PM, James Keenan via RT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The patch attached, diff.trunk.opsrenum.txt, is an improved solution to
> the problem posed by Coke in the OP of this RT. Here are its features,
> working from the surface (e.g., file name changes) down to the metho
On Wednesday 13 August 2008 19:39:16 James Keenan via RT wrote:
> Okay, thanks for getting back to me. Could you read the inline comments
> I have inserted into Parrot::OpsRenumber::renum_op_map_file()?
>
> Do the comments accurately reflect what needs to happen re opcode
> renumbering both now a
On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 3:50 PM, James Keenan via RT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat Aug 09 10:31:37 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> On Saturday 09 August 2008 06:33:46 James Keenan via RT wrote:
>>
>> > > What purpose remains, then, for either tools/dev/ops_renum.mak or
>> my
>> > > alternati
On Saturday 09 August 2008 06:33:46 James Keenan via RT wrote:
> > What purpose remains, then, for either tools/dev/ops_renum.mak or my
> > alternative, tools/dev/opsrenumber.pl? Is such a program only intended
> > to provide a number for newly added opcodes?
> We haven't had any response to thi
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 4:03 AM, James Keenan via RT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Second, two notes about the branch:
>>
>> In a fresh checkout, if I 'make renumberops' with no local
>> modifications, src/ops/ops.num changes.
>> If I rename the op store_lex to barf_lex, and run 'make renumberops',
