Re: Problems with strings on the stack (small, concise example)

2002-03-22 Thread Bryan C. Warnock
On Friday 22 March 2002 10:17, Clinton A. Pierce wrote: > No no. That's always fine. Now dump the stack. That's where the joy is! So little faith :-) Well, you don't include dump code, so I'll cobble some together. TOKBAIL: bsr DUMP end DUMP:eq I5, 0, BAIL

Re: Problems with strings on the stack (small, concise example)

2002-03-22 Thread Jason Gloudon
On Fri, Mar 22, 2002 at 10:13:41AM -0500, Jason Gloudon wrote: > assembly level. The scratch (or data) stack, and the control flow stack. The > push, pop, and save ops work on the scratch stack, which as you have found, > does type-checking. Corrections: That should have been save, savec, and

Re: Problems with strings on the stack (small, concise example)

2002-03-22 Thread Clinton A. Pierce
At 08:43 AM 3/22/2002 -0500, Bryan C. Warnock wrote: >On Friday 22 March 2002 08:22, Clinton A. Pierce wrote: > > Some patches committed last evening nearly took care of the problem -- at > > least they appeared to make my small example appear to > > work. Sometimes. :) Here's a slightly larger

Re: Problems with strings on the stack (small, concise example)

2002-03-22 Thread Melvin Smith
At 10:06 AM 3/22/2002 -0500, Joshua Nye wrote: >Doh! Applied now. > >But this fails now: > >set S0, "test" >set I0, 234 >save S0 >save I0 >restore S1 >restore I1 >end > >With error message: Wrong type on top of stack! > >Not sure if this is intended though. I though each type (INT,NUM,PMC,STR) >ha

Re: Problems with strings on the stack (small, concise example)

2002-03-22 Thread Jason Gloudon
On Fri, Mar 22, 2002 at 10:06:44AM -0500, Joshua Nye wrote: > Not sure if this is intended though. I though each type (INT,NUM,PMC,STR) > has it's own stack? This is the expected behaviour. There are only two stacks visible at the parrot assembly level. The scratch (or data) stack, and the contr

Re: Problems with strings on the stack (small, concise example)

2002-03-22 Thread Bryan C. Warnock
On Friday 22 March 2002 10:06, Joshua Nye wrote: > Doh! Applied now. > > But this fails now: > > set S0, "test" > set I0, 234 > save S0 > save I0 > restore S1 > restore I1 LIFO. Switch your restores. You're trying to pop an integer (IO) into a string (S1). > end > > With error message: Wr

Re: Problems with strings on the stack (small, concise example)

2002-03-22 Thread Joshua Nye
Nevermind I think it's just two early in the morning for me. - Original Message - From: "Joshua Nye" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 10:06 AM Subject: Re: Problems with strings on the stack

Re: Problems with strings on the stack (small, concise example)

2002-03-22 Thread Joshua Nye
sage - From: "Bryan C. Warnock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Joshua Nye" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 9:45 AM Subject: Re: Problems with strings on the stack (small, concise example) > On Friday 22 March 2002 09:37, Jo

Re: Problems with strings on the stack (small, concise example)

2002-03-22 Thread Bryan C. Warnock
On Friday 22 March 2002 09:37, Joshua Nye wrote: > Works ok up to 15 items on the stack. After that I get screwy results back. Is that with or without my patch? http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg09093.html -- Bryan C. Warnock [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Problems with strings on the stack (small, concise example)

2002-03-22 Thread Joshua Nye
PROTECTED]> To: "Clinton A. Pierce" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 8:43 AM Subject: Re: Problems with strings on the stack (small, concise example) > On Friday 22 March 2002 08:22, Clinton A. Pierce wrote: > > Some

Re: Problems with strings on the stack (small, concise example)

2002-03-22 Thread Bryan C. Warnock
On Friday 22 March 2002 08:22, Clinton A. Pierce wrote: > Some patches committed last evening nearly took care of the problem -- at > least they appeared to make my small example appear to > work. Sometimes. :) Here's a slightly larger but better example that so > far hasn't failed to show t

Re: Problems with strings on the stack (small, concise example)

2002-03-22 Thread Clinton A. Pierce
Some patches committed last evening nearly took care of the problem -- at least they appeared to make my small example appear to work. Sometimes. :) Here's a slightly larger but better example that so far hasn't failed to show the stack corruption problem anywhere: TOKENIZER: set S

[PATCH] resources.c (was Re: Problems with strings on the stack (small, concise example))

2002-03-21 Thread Bryan C. Warnock
Fixes a couple GC problems. Index: resources.c === RCS file: /home/perlcvs/parrot/resources.c,v retrieving revision 1.31 diff -u -r1.31 resources.c --- resources.c 18 Mar 2002 20:15:02 - 1.31 +++ resources.c 22 Mar 2002 06:2

Re: Problems with strings on the stack (small, concise example)

2002-03-21 Thread Bryan C. Warnock
It's not the stack. Addresses are being reused. (I'm watching the stack on entry to stack_push. Pop is probably working okay, too. I don't know why the old contents aren't being clobbered, though. Since I know when it happens, I'll try to narrow it down there.) `parrot`stacks.c`stack_push`

Re: Problems with strings on the stack (small, concise example)

2002-03-21 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 8:52 PM -0500 3/21/02, Clinton A. Pierce wrote: >Sorry it took me so long to get this down to something concise. I >wish it were smaller, not so critical to me, and a little more >consistent. Don't sweat it--I think that the issue is stack corruption, so I'll go poke around in the stack co