Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 11:16 AM +0100 11/2/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> I was thinking something a bit more primitive. Since we can treat the
> call chain as an array, we could do:
> $S0 = insert_opname_here [0; 'subname'] # Get the current sub name
> $S1 = insert_op
At 11:16 AM +0100 11/2/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 11:45 AM +0200 10/29/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Should the traceback object be avaiable as a PMC?
Nah, I don't think so. There's nothing in the traceback that wouldn't
be in the current continuation, s
Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Basically we want to be able to walk a continuation chain and get
>> access to everything.
> I think having methods is ok for that. It's in no way time critical to
> warrant opcodes.
I've now created two meth
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 11:45 AM +0200 10/29/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
>>Should the traceback object be avaiable as a PMC?
> Nah, I don't think so. There's nothing in the traceback that wouldn't
> be in the current continuation, so I don't think it's worth
> bothering.
Ok.
At 11:45 AM +0200 10/29/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
We now have since quite a time the current subroutine and the
current continuation in the interpreter context structure. With that
at hand, we should now be able to generate function tracebacks in
error case and we need the call chain too, to op
We now have since quite a time the current subroutine and the current
continuation in the interpreter context structure. With that at hand, we
should now be able to generate function tracebacks in error case and we
need the call chain too, to optimize register frame recycling.
Whenever a contin
