At 12:30 PM 10/28/2003 +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Melvin Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You'll have to edit interpreter.h and set PARROT_CATCH_NULL to 1
> to enable it.
Turned on now by default.
Good.
> The patch adds the Null PMC class, only instantiated once in
> system memory.
... which
Melvin Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just in time for the "screamin' punkin" release
> You'll have to edit interpreter.h and set PARROT_CATCH_NULL to 1
> to enable it.
Turned on now by default.
> The patch adds the Null PMC class, only instantiated once in
> system memory.
... which wa
Just in time for the "screamin' punkin" release
I've patched in a quick and dirty implementation of the previous
discussion regarding Parrot segfaulting on access to a null register.
Of course, HLL compilers shouldn't generate code that results in
an uninitialized Px register, but we would lik
Yep. Seems reasonable. The macros would improve readability IMHO
As long as they don't impair debugability.
(I make a reference to perl5's macros containing macros, which do
different things based on other macros, and other fun things. It's a
fine line.)
-R
"Sean O'Rourke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 30 May 2003, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
>> Ha ha, just kidding, of course. I'm all for it, but given my record
>> today, that might be an imminent sign of its rejection.
>
> Or, given your historical record, you may have just killed the thread ;).
Th
At 5:54 PM +0200 5/31/03, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Mitchell N Charity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At a minimum, it would be nice for some register access macro set to
be globally available.
REG_PMC(0) = method;
Yep. Seems reasonable. The macros would improve readability IMHO
Abso
Mitchell N Charity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At a minimum, it would be nice for some register access macro set to
> be globally available.
>REG_PMC(0) = method;
Yep. Seems reasonable. The macros would improve readability IMHO
> Mitchell
leo
On 30 May 2003, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> Ha ha, just kidding, of course. I'm all for it, but given my record
> today, that might be an imminent sign of its rejection.
Or, given your historical record, you may have just killed the thread ;).
/s
On Fri, 2003-05-30 at 19:42, Mitchell N Charity wrote:
> Eeep.
{snip snip}
> So...
>
> I suggest existing register access be replaced with a new macro set
>#define REG_INT(x) interpreter->ctx.int_reg.registers[x]
>#define REG_NUM(x) interpreter->ctx.num_reg.r
debug.ops
method_util.c
ops2cgc.pl
register.c
trace.c
There are about 166 uses of interpreter->ctx. which are not FOO_reg.registers.
so what?
The vast majority of register accesses (~90%) are simply cut-and-pastes of 4
interpreter->ctx.FOO_reg.registers[BAR]
strings.
R
10 matches
Mail list logo
