Re: Resync time... [APPLIED] [APPLIED again]

2002-04-15 Thread Peter Gibbs
Dan Sugalski wrote: > This feels excessively hackish. It's OK if we were welding in COW to > an existing code base, but we're not--if we put it in, we put it in > right. > > Right, in this case, is using the COW flag bit in the Buffer > structure and making the changes to the appropriate string_*

Re: Resync time... [APPLIED] [APPLIED again]

2002-04-15 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 11:21 PM +0200 4/15/02, Peter Gibbs wrote: > > Is this still needed with the update to Parrot_allocate to use >> buffers? I think I took care of that. > >No, Parrot_allocate still sets buflen to the original requested 'size'; not >the inflated 'req_size' - I'm not sure what you intended. I i

Re: Resync time... [APPLIED] [APPLIED again]

2002-04-15 Thread Peter Gibbs
> Is this still needed with the update to Parrot_allocate to use > buffers? I think I took care of that. No, Parrot_allocate still sets buflen to the original requested 'size'; not the inflated 'req_size' - I'm not sure what you intended. The behaviour of Parrot_allocate needs to clearly defined

Re: Resync time... [APPLIED] [APPLIED again]

2002-04-15 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 11:07 PM +0200 4/15/02, Peter Gibbs wrote: >Dan Sugalski wrote: > >> This has been applied too. There's something bugging me about it--I >> think there may be issues, and I'd really like it if we made sure we >> had a bunch of zero-length string tests in the test suite. > >The only issue I a

Re: Resync time... [APPLIED]

2002-04-15 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 4:59 PM -0400 4/15/02, Mike Lambert wrote: >Looks like this latest broke galatic and momentum boxes on tinderbox. >Can't assigned to a casted pointer. I think the following patch should >help. Applied, thanks. -- Dan --

Re: Resync time... [APPLIED] [APPLIED again]

2002-04-15 Thread Peter Gibbs
Dan Sugalski wrote: > This has been applied too. There's something bugging me about it--I > think there may be issues, and I'd really like it if we made sure we > had a bunch of zero-length string tests in the test suite. The only issue I am currently aware of with zero-length strings is the fac

Re: Resync time... [APPLIED] [APPLIED again]

2002-04-15 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 10:26 PM +0200 4/15/02, Peter Gibbs wrote: > >Note that string_grow still has the problem with not bothering to allocate a >new buffer if copysize is zero, e.g. if we are expanding a previously empty >buffer. > >I have submitted a patch for this previously, but since string_grow has now >change

Re: Resync time... [APPLIED]

2002-04-15 Thread Peter Gibbs
Note that string_grow still has the problem with not bothering to allocate a new buffer if copysize is zero, e.g. if we are expanding a previously empty buffer. I have submitted a patch for this previously, but since string_grow has now changed, herewith a resynced patch. -- Peter Gibbs EmKel Sy

Re: Resync time... [APPLIED]

2002-04-15 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 3:03 PM -0400 4/15/02, Simon Glover wrote: > Looks pretty good here. One minor thing I noticed: the change to > string_grow means that we've got an unused local variable, which > the patch below gets rid of. Applied. I'd hope the compilers would optimize that away, but it's best to not be