Re: parrot/t/src/hash.t

2003-09-23 Thread Leopold Toetsch
> 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. >

Re: parrot -t

2003-09-22 Thread Will Coleda
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

Re: parrot -t

2003-09-22 Thread Leopold Toetsch
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

Re: parrot -t

2003-09-22 Thread Dan Sugalski
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

Re: parrot -t

2003-09-22 Thread Leopold Toetsch
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

Re: parrot -t

2003-09-22 Thread Leopold Toetsch
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

Re: parrot -t

2003-09-22 Thread Leopold Toetsch
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

Re: parrot -t

2003-09-21 Thread Will Coleda
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

RE: parrot -t

2003-09-21 Thread Brent Dax
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

Re: parrot -t

2003-09-21 Thread Will Coleda
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: