> Here are some unit tests for the hash.h interface which are PerlHash
> free. It could be argued that they're superfluous, but given that there
> may well be other hash PMCs that use this code eventually, it might be
> worth testing it independently.
Tests are always welcome. Thanks, applied.
>
Note to self: always read all emails from leo before composing a reply.
Other note to self: don't send in bug reports when you've been up for
24 hours, it's probably your fault, anyway.
Ok. got a cvs udpate, did a make distclean, rebuilt (btw, the manifest
is broken. I'm pretty sure this, at le
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Looks like they might've broken the JIT. (Or something else recently did)
"make testj" fails on two of the string tests now. (91 and 92)
Yep. Two missing "end" in the newly added tests WRT string index and
encodings - fixed.
Dan
leo
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Will Coleda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>> Should "parrot -t 2> /dev/null" work the same as "parrot 2> /dev/null"
>
> > Actually it doesn't leak memory but it exhausts memory. I'm currently
> > inve
Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Will Coleda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Should "parrot -t 2> /dev/null" work the same as "parrot 2> /dev/null"
> Actually it doesn't leak memory but it exhausts memory. I'm currently
> investigating the problem, which is caused by all the DOD/GC bl
Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Will Coleda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Should "parrot -t 2> /dev/null" work the same as "parrot 2> /dev/null"
>> ? (that is, are the results of the program the same except for the
>> additional output printed to stderr?)
> It should work the same. B
Will Coleda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Should "parrot -t 2> /dev/null" work the same as "parrot 2> /dev/null"
> ? (that is, are the results of the program the same except for the
> additional output printed to stderr?)
It should work the same. But currently "-t" leaks memory like a sieve
and is
On Sunday, September 21, 2003, at 04:26 PM, Brent Dax wrote:
Will Coleda:
# Running with -b and -p gives the same output as no flags, which if I
# read Brett right, means that there's something else wrong.
That tells me that the problem is in the runloop you're using. Try it
with each of these
Will Coleda:
# It looks like Brett was talking to the list, but didn't actually send
# there. =-)
Gah! I keep doing that! *headdesk*
# Running with -b and -p gives the same output as no flags, which if I
# read Brett right, means that there's something else wrong.
That tells me that the proble
It looks like Brett was talking to the list, but didn't actually send
there. =-)
Running with -b and -p gives the same output as no flags, which if I
read Brett right, means that there's something else wrong.
Regards.
On Sunday, September 21, 2003, at 03:44 PM, Brent Dax wrote:
Will Coleda:
10 matches
Mail list logo